The Daily News. TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1920. STATE STRIKE-BREAKING.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 March 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1920. STATE STRIKE-BREAKING.

Closely following on the breaking of the railway strike in Britain has come a similar success in Prance. In both cases the resources of the State were used as a lever to cope with the strike, backed up by public opinion. The French Government has the advantage over the British, inasmuch as it can not only call upon its soldiers to act as engine-drivers, guards and porters, but can mobilise the strikers in their capacity of military reservists to assist their military comrades to render a strike futile. The justification for such action is to be found in the principle enunciated by M. Briand on the occasion of a previous strike, when he declared that the right of the community to exist was superior to the right of the workers to strike. The ■ general recognition of this wise dictum would be the death knell of direct action, provided the necessary power existed to carry the principle into practice. Admittedly the remedy is drastic, but so is the evil. The right of the community to exist is a basic law of demowe are faced with the fact that in those countries where democratic government approaches more nearly to the ideal, the strike weapon is becoming more and more in evidence, so that we have recently seen the British and French Governments acting as strike-breakers, and these object lessons are sufficient evidence that the rights of the people are paramount. At the same time it is far better to prevent a strike than to break it. No nation can afford to have its transport system paralysed by the arbitrary action of any section or combination of workers. Manifestly the public cannot cope with such a disaster, so that unless the

State intervenes, people of all classes must suffer. In the British railway strike the question at issue was better wages and conditions, while in the French strike it was nationalisation, therefore political. In both cases the strikers had the people against them, and failure resulted. ' The State, however, cannot always intervene in this way, hence the necessity for preventive measures, but these will be of no avail unless direct action is banned by law, but it is not to be expected that the workers will abandon their powerful lever until they are satisfied their grievances will be remedied satisfactorily by other means. In this connection the action of the New Zealand Government in appointing a "Wages Inquiry Board may be regarded as an important experiment, in which a leading principle is involved. This bpard, or commission, consisted of the president of the Arbitration Court (Mr. Justice Stringer),'chairman, with assessors representing the Government and each of the three railwaymen's societies. The differ ence between this tribunal and the Arbitration Court consisted in the decisions not partaking of the nature of an award, but being recommendations to the Minister. It would be thought .that an inquiry into conditions and grievances by those who are experts in the industry would reveal the true state of affairs, and lead to recommendations that would be generally accepted by the men concerned. That the inquiry was exhaustive may be.gathered from the report made by the chairman, but as to the result being satisfactory to the railwaymen, the strong protests passed by the various branches tell their own tale. Possibly it was too much to expect that the experiment would prove a complete success, yet there is no question that it was made with the best possible intention of giving the men a fair deal all round. The report, unfortunately, has caused such dissatisfaction among members of both divisions of the railway service that already there has been a stop-work meeting held at Christchurch, when a demand was made that the executive should meet at once to decide upon an immediate line of action, while it is expected similar meetings will be held elsewhere. In all probability it will be found that a compromise can be made on such points as are in dispute. AH the same, it is disappointing that the experiment has not achieved the success which it deserved, and the failure may have a far-reaching effect. It was probable that had the recommendations been-acceptable to the men, a permanent Wages Board would have been created, and the principle might have been extended to other large industries, thus establishing a means for obviating strikes. Although the experiment has received'a fair test, and has not proved as satisfactory as could be desired, it was certainly a progressive move, the chief drawback to the Arbitration Court being that the associates of the president are merely nominees of the employers and employees, and not assessors for the parties in dispute, possessing a full expert knowledge of existing conditions, as well as being acquainted with the grievances to be redressed. The result of the inquiry cannot be regarded as a failure, though it may be necessary to make certain alterations to ensure that all sections of the industry are represented. The one vital essential is that a board of this kind shall possess the confidence of those interested in its deliberations, and once this is secured the way will be open to make a strife a penal offence.