The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1911. THE FEDERATION OF LABOUR.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13526, 7 November 1911, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1911. THE FEDERATION OF LABOUR.

The New Zealand Federation of Labour, just now is occupying considerable attention amongst the workers of tho Dominion. and it has been the cause of serious divisions and dissentions in trades aild labour circles in various centres. For instance, only last week a majority of the Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union decided to join the Federation, a proposal strongly opposed by the executive, only one member of which supported it. The secretary of the Union states that the majority in favour of the Federation were the discontented who did not get much of the work offering, and ho points out that the Federation is only another name for the Socialist Party., One might well ask, what’s in a name? Wo might reply, a great deal where Socialism is concerned, for there are Socialists and Socialists, and the strong Socialistic tendencies of the New Zealand Federation of Labour are unmistakable. The assistant secretary of the Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union puts the position in a nutshell. He states that strife is not desired, but “the Union would stop at nothing to better the conditions of tho ill-paid waterside workers.” And in this “stopping at nothing” lies the danger. Language was given to conceal onr thoughts, said a noted philosopher, although tho views expressed by the official above referred to leave no room for doubt as to the object of the Federation. But while the assistant-secretary of tho Waterside Workers’ Union is apparently unable to conceal his thoughts, Mr Semple, the first president and at present organiser of the Federation, is more guarded in his publicly-expressed views, judging by the report of an interview at Auckland last week with him by a representative of tho New Zealand Herald. Asked as to what was the object of the Federation, Mr Semple replied; “Our object is to create closer unity amongst the rank and file with tho view of improving their conditions. We wish to create one great national organisation and then link it up with other similar organisations in different parts of the world.” “And your ultimate goal is what?” asked the reporter. Mr Semple’s answer was more than optimistic—it was distinctly idealistic. “We aim at the abolition of poverty, a more equal distribution of wealth, and equal opportunities for all.” “Four policy id in opposition to the Arbitration Act r queried the newspaper man. “Yes,” said Mr Semple, “we are opposed to compulsory arbitration. It was not made a condition that registered Unions should cancel their registration on joining us, but nearly all the Unions now under our banner have cancelled their registration. Wo support voluntary, not compulsory arbitration. We believe in experts on both sides gathering round tho table and settling disputes.” All this is very reasonable, but should this method fail, what is the next stop. Said Mr Semple.

“Each Union has self-governing powers. When an agreement with the employers' .expires the Union draws up another agreement, which is submitted to the employers for consideration. A conference takes place, if necessary, and if the result is not satisfactory from the Union s point of view the case is referred to the local Industrial Council, composed of delegates from- all Unions in that particular district. Should there still he a failure to arrive at a settlement the matter is handed over to the National Executive of the Federation. Up to the present one or other of these channels of settlement has never failed to bring about an agreement,” When asked why this form of procedure was not adopted in the present strike at Auckland, and whether the strike could not thereby have been avoided, Mr Semple said: “There are cases when momentary action is necessary in the defence of grea Principles. The present is one of the cases in which direct and immediate action was necessary. The system of sub-icttmg has been turned down in all other parts of the world, and at all costs it .must be got rid of.” Mr Semple added that it was far from his desire to bring about a dislocation of trade, and he had no doubt that if the members of the Drainage Bead were reasonable men the trouble would be ended speedily. Mr Semple went on to say that at all costs the men must retain the right to strike, for if they surrendered that they would become more serfs, though ho did not think there was much fear of a general strike or of national action, for all the agreements that the members of the Federation had made with the employers had proved a success. Mr Semple's guarded utterances are in marked contrast to the fiery articles of the organ of the Federation— I The Maorilaud Worker—which since its inception has been practically advocating strike methods—a national strike—the dislocation of trade and commcree-as the only effective method of the workers gaining their own ends. Contrasted with Mr Semple’s views expressed to an Auckland reporter, the following from the last issue (November 3) of the Maonlan Worker will be read with interest: Surely no one could ask for any grander tribute to the necessity and efficacy o the General Strike? By its means, a collapsed social structure—m other “ overturned capitalistic order, an «md<-d present economic system-nnd collateraUi a reconstructed society, production for use, prolitmongering exterminated, New Time, Co-operative Commonwealth, wealth ioril. working-class makers,! , . . In regard to the strike v. arbitration—to continue the train of thought—it isn t because the strike is ittef liked that arbitration !, being “turned down." Every worker would naturally prefer the “peaceful way if it

were the correct way. Those who rave against “violence,” do they think that we who are said to advocate “violence’’ prefer war to peace? Do the unity campaigners labelling us_of the Socialist Party •‘revolutionary” and red rag," believe that, it is personal preference for tho pleasant which causes us to keep out of the respectable “evolutionary” Lib.-Lab. camp? . , . Of course, “less violent means” have failed, -—lamentably failed—lamentably and bulgingly failed. If arbitration, for instance, had succeeded, would Unions wholesale be repudiating it because it had succeeded? If Liberalism had succeeded would the Labour Party be attacking it? If anything in this wide world had given to the smitten toilers the elementary requirements of an assured sufficiency of food, shelter and clothing, would that anything have been rejected? Preposterous!—all and absolutely. “Less violent means" have utterly failed. Everything has failed. Everything short of Socialism must fail. ... All that the workers need is emancipation. Nothing can give it'ta them but Socialism. Then would it not Be sounder, honcstcr, to preach Socialism, propagate Socialism, avow' Socialism;and organise iu Socialism’s name for Socialism’s goal?