THE THREATENED SEAMEN'S STRIKE. A Powerful Combination.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 289, 11 August 1888, Page 5

THE THREATENED SEAMEN'S STRIKE. A Powerful Combination.

The " Sydney Telegraph " of July 21st gives the following account of the trouble between the Seamen's Union and the Shipowners' Association : "The dispute between

the Ferateded Seamen's Union and the Steamship Owners' Association, like thafc between the miners and mine-owners of the Hunter River district, is a manyheaded grievance. Ib originated in a New Zealand matter. Some months ago the Northern Steamship Company of that colony, finding itself in financial difficulties, reduced the wages of the seamen and firemen employed in ibs vessels. Thereupon the men were withdrawn. But such was the industrial distress in the colony thab the Company was able to replace the men who went out on strike. The case of the latter, however, was taken up by the Federabod Seamen's Union of Australasia, and two boats were pub on tokilltheCompany'sJbrade. The Company madealongerfighb of ib than was anticipated and at the end of May ib was discovered bhab bhe Steamship Owners' Association of Australia was holding up the Auckland Company. So long as the two parties were subsidised by powerful organisations in Australia neither had a prospect of victory. The competibion for a small trade might have gone on for a century upon such conditions. Therefore the Federated Seamen's Union sugge&bed the holding of a conference with a view to bringing the struggle to a termination. This was refused, bub a "general arbitration upon all existing differences and disputes " was offered, the " decisions of such arbitration to be binding upon both parties for a term of years." A month passed withoub any reply to this offer. An intimation thab it would be withdrawn unless immediately accepted appears to ha\e brought about an interview between representatives of the two organisations. Meanwhile the Maritime Labour Council was convened, and on the 23rd inst. the Secretary of the Foderated Seamen's Union proposed that the Union men be re-employed on the Northern Steamship Company's boats, and thab afterwards the terms of a permanent settlement of the dispute be arranged. In the letter conveying this proposal, the first note of war was sounded. Should bhe owners not agree to this proposal some other mode of action, it was said, would be devised. Then the owners began to show their hand. They proposed that only tho Now Zealand dispute be referred to arbitration, bub that other matters, in which they claimed concessions from the men, should also bo adjudicated upon This was a distincb and deliberate widening of the breach. To this Mr Davis replied that ho was " instructed to respectfully decline any scheme of arbitration which had not for its basis the maintenance of existing rates of wages, overtime and hours of labour." Further, Mr Davis accused the owners of making a " direct attack upon the eight-hour system, which is so dear to all Australian workers, and which at all hazards we will maintain on behalf of ourselves and our co-workers ashore." and held out a bhreab of "retaliatory measures." The owners promptly denied any intention, "at the presenb time," to disturb either tho eighthour system or the rate of wages. The charge, however, was reiterated, and the owners informed that upon a given date all labour would be withdrawn from their vessels. The last letter, doted yesterday, was one from the owners, in which they pointed out bhe fact that the intended action of the men would "result in great loss and suffering to the whole community," and suggested that it should be reconsidered. It is ab this critical stage thab bhe mabter re&bs jusb now. The public will nobe thab bhe seamen's broad appeal to their sympathy find support will be made on bhe ground that the steamship-owners are directly attacking the eight-hour system. The accusation i& denied in the most explicit terms. Whab light does the correspondenc throw upon this important phase of fche dispute ? The union's suspicion was evidently excited by the associabion's proposals conveyed in bhe letter of bhe24th inst. A curious distinction is therein made which is possibly open to the interpretation put upon ifc by the men. In the statement of matters pioposed to be submibbed bo arbitration, bhe a&sociation claims thab time for time be allowed by the men ab ports other than tidal ones and bar harbours ; eight hours' work per day only to bo done tor the ordinary wages ; overtime to be paid extra. This is clear enough and whatever rmiy be the merits of the concession asked for, time for time to be allowed by the men, the eight-hour system is nol abtacked. But another claim is that "there shall be no over- time at tidal ports and bar harbours or while landing live stock." We suppose ifc is in bhis claim thab the men find the alleged attack upon the eight-hour system. Everything depends, ib will be seen at a glance, upon whether tho time worked in ships trading to tidal ports or bar harbours averages over or under eight hours per day. Did the owners compute this average before sobbing up the claim ? Did bhe men compute ib before charging the owners with an intention for attack tho eight-hour system ? If bhe eight-hour system is safe, there is nothing in the other matters of dispute, so far as the information now to hand enables us to form an opinion, which would in any degree justify the men in threatening to lay up the steam fleets of Australasia. A good deal would be willingly risked by the working-classes for the sake of preserving bhe blessing ol reasonably short hours of daily toil ; bub if bhe Bbeam-ship-owners can satisfactorily explain the proposal which is apparently responsible for bhe union's suspicion, we bhink bhe threat conveyed in the latter 's letter of bhe 27ins>b., ought to be immediately withdrawn."