SIR ROBERT STOUT ON THE LABOR QUESTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2103, 25 September 1890, Page 4

SIR ROBERT STOUT ON THE LABOR QUESTION.

\ Sir Kobert Stout writes on the Labor Question to the Otago Daily ,Times as follows: — ! I. —THE CATTSE OF THE TBOUBLE IN ATJSTEALIA

j And first, fas to the Union Steam Ship Company. This company has practically the monopoly of the intercolonial and the main intercoastal trade of this colony. It.is a company mainly owned in Europe—not more than about one-eighth of its share's is held in Australasia. It has a fine fleet, and its vessels were manned aad pfficered as perhaps no, fleet was jnanned and officered in the world. It: has ever been kindly and considerately treated by the various Ministries, and it has performed its duties admirably. Its chairman, the Hon. {Q-eorge M'Lean, was ever fair and considerate to the employes, ys was also the managing dirrctor, Mr James Mills. All its saamen were unionists,' as well as its firemen, cooks, and stewards. Up to this year, however, none of its ofllcerß belonged to a union. The company some years ago (I belief e as far back as 1884 or 1885) joined an Australian association of shipowners, formed for mutual protection, and J am informed thai it did so under .the fear that if it kept out of this capitalist union its monopoly would be interfered with by Australian steamships. Up to the time of its joining this association an officers' association was not in existence; and only within the last two months did the officers'association affiliate with the Maritime Council. It will therefore be seen that this capitalistic trade union preceded in point of time the officers' trade union. A dispute arose between the shipowner of Australia and the officers employed by them. These officers had formed an association, but had not then affiliated with both the Trades and Labor Councils of "Victoria and, Sydney. The Seamen's:AssociationTof' New South Wales is not yet affiliated with the Trades and Labor Council of Sydney, nor with the Officers' Association. The shipowners declined to treat with the officers, and asked for delay. Some weeks elapsed, and during this time the Officers' Association had become affiliated with both the Trades and Labor Councils I have named. The shipowners at the end,of; some weeks said, "We decline to treat with your association till you disaffiliate." This the officers declined to do, : And as their demands—-many, if not all of them, just and fair—were not acceded to, they threatened a strike. ( The shipowners were obdurate and re-'' polled conciliation, and said, to use the phrase of the Hon. G. M'Lean, "There was nothing to arbitrate about." A strike then ensued. It is, under our present social arrangements, the only remedy left to the workers; and some of the trades affiliated struck also, and the seamen of New South Wales, out of loyalty to their fellow workers, joined in the movement.' This, succinctly put, is how the strike arose in Australia.

lI.—HOW IT EXTENDED TO NEW ZEALAND.

The Maritime Council of New Zealand consists of branches of the Australian union. It was the earnest desire of the Maritime Council to avoid a strike here. The first trouble arose over the Waihora, when the Sydney wharf laborers declined to work this vessel as she was one of the Shipowners' Association's steamers. The Union Company appealed to the Maritime Council, and it promptly offered that the seamen should work this vessel, and this was done. Two other steamers belonging to the company arrived in Sydney, and again the wharf laborers declined to work. Without waiting for the interference of the Maritime Ceuncil the agent of the Union Company employed nonunion laborers. Now it was known that were this done a strike would ■ensue, and a general strike followed. The Union Company, therefore, with its eyes open practically invited a strike. How far it was coerced into such an act by the Shipowners' Association the correspondence and cablegrams between the company and the ', Australian shipowners would, if published, show. I have given a plain recital of the facts. 11l- —WAS THE STBIIE JUSTIFIED ?

If it succeeds it was. Looking j at the question from my standpoint, and with the information I possess, I think it might have been advisable to allow the unionists iu .New Zealand to act as the "foraging party"—-the commissariat—to their brethren gaged in fighting, And this view I expressed to many the day I first heard of the strike. But there is another side to the question, and to be said for the view of the Maritime Council. (1) If the New Zealanders had not supported the unionists by striking, and had worked with nonunionists, the whole principle of unionism would have been jeopardised; (2) it might have shown a want of loyalty to their co-workers, and thus have inflicted a grievous blow to-the principle of co-operation amongst laborers. To fairly criticise, therefore, the executive of the unions one must try to put himself in their place, and if that be done it will be seen that a good defence may be made for their action.

IV.—THE SIDE ISSUES : (a) OFFICERS AND SEAMEN.

There have been raised lots of side issues, and I deal with some of them. The first is a small one. It is said officers should not unite with seamen. I confess I cannot understand why

here should be any objection to the Officers' Association joinings general pouncil on which seamen are represented. It is not a union of seamen and officers in' one association. Even If this were,.so, I see ,po objection Have we the reign of ,Br,ahm;nism in New Zealand ? Have we castes ? iWhy should there not be one association? We fiud the civil Hervantu uniting in one ; society —r undavBeeretariea, magistrates, aud clerks all united, Now the discipline required pver clerks, Ac , ,is just as exacting and as important as by', officers over seamen Again, letius go to Hawke's Bay, and what do we find ? Actually the employers and all grades of employes, officers, ,and labprers forming one association! Where,, then, is discipline ? This cry of >" discipline pndangered" is but,,a cry. _ But the pfficera and seamen did not join in one association. Their , associations arc distinct, and self-gover,ned. There jb pnly affiliation, not with.seamen alono, but with the Maritime Council, ,wbiqh includes miners and, others besides Beamen. , I think, therefore,,.this s.idq, jsßue may be i dismissed. The next side issue: (Bf) {THE BOTCOTT. 1 Now there, are boycotts ,and boy-1 cottß. , It, as the Chief Baron of Ireland has recently said (I paraphrase , his words), I go into a shop in Princes I street, and not ioto one in G-eorge street, my reason for doinsj this being that I desire to prefer the one storeKeeper to the other,, even though ,the iGeorge street shopkeeper sells cheaper and better goods, I am a free man, land I can do as I please, and:it is ,npt an .unlawful act. Apply' this to laborers selling labor, and who can say they are not justified in decling to work for certain employers ? ; The Union Company did not of old , object to the boycott. For example, on one oecasioa a steamer came to New Zealand —the Gerda was, I believe, her name and- began doing coastal trade, 'J he, Union Company complained to the teamen's Unisn, and gotjthat body to prevent the steamer doingi business in New Zealand r.until she. submitted to junio.n rules.■; ..She iwas refused coaluntilisbe compliedi wjth union rulesi Further, 'the UnionCompanys appealedi to fceamen's; Union tOs iptertere, with-the China steamers in landingi i their;.teas, The steamers were u>tiiallowedcto take' transhipments ofvteas fypmNew South; ;Wales ,tp New;.Zealand, -leyen though thesenteas ;had r (been brought ■:. from Qhinain the same companyls steamers.' They'had ;to give; the transhipments >to the. Union Company or ; be bojc.dtted.

I nowjcome i tonone or\? two, points that need (Consideration' in this dispute. I:ask— ■■■ i ■

V.—HATS! TBJOJESbUNSOirSfBEEir ; XHBBiTJINKD ?

That this tfuery.Biust be answered! in the • affirmative is ; plain'from-the following; facts :-h-(l) The < shipowners object to even dieicuaaf the iquestion of grievances untilthe officers disaffiliate, and demand r.now (the ;bre*kingoup of unions* , i(2) yThe tprogramme vO)f the Hawke'n Bay Association < practically boycotts . unionists. (8) Many employers in Dunedm desired that unionists should be.locked out, (4) The communication of the president of the Hawke'sißay Association to the Timaru Employers' Association asked that the employers should not employ unionists. (5) Many of,the capitalist employers, desire the destruction of trade unionism, and many of the New Zealand newspapers support this. (6) The anonymous Tolpatcheriee re-echo the same sentiment.

It has ; bqen, asked.. . Tl;-rSHO¥LD THE UNION COM* ANT ; BE sufsobted? The farpsers hayp sl been asked to hejp it,; . I believe in thia ; the company js in, the wrpng, and I, deeply regret it,,for who,can help haying a kindly,feeling for .it?,, If it:had had any consideration- for,, the; farmers, and merchants, would .it opt have sacrificed much before it forced ;a;strike? So far as I can ; .gather, .it Invited a strike sppner than .break , with the fthipowners' :f Association, as it dreaded icptt^tition —the, destruction ..of its company in these struggle-fpr-esistence days. I have already said much in its Ipraise, but that should not blind one to the truth. Do not'let it Sail under falue colors. It is fighting for " its own hand." It is not fighting for, anyjtbing pise. Its consideration for the. farmers may be measured by the, fact ithat it has, during the struggle (which necessitated.it giving less facilities than ;it formerly gave ; raised its freights 50 Iper cent.. r The struggle is not to be at jits expense alone. 1 If it had thought ftiore of our farmers ! arid merchants jand jess of itself, would it, I again ask, not have sacrificed much to avoid the •paralysis of trade, we have witnessed ? jThe question will be asked

JTII.— TfHAT WIIL BE THE OUTCOME OF THE STRUGGLE?

: I believe^ Will enable colonists to see—(iy That' it is impolitic to have [all pur ;: intercolonial carrying trade !monopolised,by>one company. How I there is to-come competition I know [not: The UnibV Company ib strong.: ilt has accumulated reserves, it has J the start, it has a. magnificent fleet, it 1 has shown great enterprise; but if it becomes too strong, and the monopoly becomes injurious to New Zealand, then the tate must /.; ■ protect its citizens against such. Certainly our producers and traders have nothing specially to be grateful for to the Union Company in this struggle. (2) I think the struggle will show the labor party the absolute need of carry

ing public opinion with them in every movement they make The London dockers had the sympathy of even som* of the ,Tory organs of New Zealand, though they resorted to boycotting and picketing, and even other more questionable proceedings. The people saw a grievance existed, and they did not carefully scan the side issues. To accomplish anything the small farmers must unite , with the Workers. Everything t will be done, as was done in Imperial France, to politically separate the two. Already some imagine that the natural allies of the small settlers are the big companies > and the large landowners. Are ,the | sons of the small farmers not laborers? They will soon be undeceived. The labor party is but young. It' will very probably ask for tiding" that are unreasonable; but it does not aim at destroying individualism, nor thrift, nor property, as some say. Its aim, as I understand it, is to raise the laborer—and this means raising the race. Like other 'unions, it <may often do the wrong thing, and the right thing at j the wrong time.' No human institution is perfects Even associations supposed to be under the direct influence of Deity have blundered — nay, committed' crimes. Why, then, all this denunciation of laborers? What is needed at this time is some coolness of temper in considering the position. The most excitable men I have heard of have been those who have denounced unions. Fancy, for example, a J.P. rushing to a Crown prosecutor to indict the Maritime' Council for conspiracy! And {here have been, other escapades still more amusing amongst some of our excitable and excited citizens. When the fight is over the true issue will be perhaps mare clearly seen. At present, according to the side we take, our vision is apt to get'blurred. I have written this letter from the union side to show how I think the question may be viewed. It may be biased, but I,leave it to those who desire to act impartially to consider what I hare ■aid.—l am, Ac,

Kobert Stout.

i September 15