The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1913.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 3742, 30 January 1913, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1913.

There are many features in connection until tile propose:! amalgamation

What Would the U.L.P Have to Gain?

of the existing Labor organisations which would servo to provide interesting subjects for discussion. Upon the present occasion we intend just to

refer briefly to the suggested solution of the great problem which is presented by the totally different attitudes which have been 'adopted by the Federation of Labor and the United Labor Party in the past with reference to the question of the settlement of all industrial, disputes. It is perhaps fairly well-known that'the United Labor Party, for example, has throughout its career claimed in this regard that it stands for “the peaceful settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration, reserving the strike as a weapon of last resort.” No doubt it is the case that the “plank” to which we have just alluded does not state that the party ardently favors a system of compulsory conciliation and arbitration. What the words do infer, however, is, it will be agreed, that at any rate its members firmly believe that the strike weapon should not be requisitioned until all possible chances of settling any dispute by means of conciliation and arbitration have been exhausted. So much then for the letter of the “plank.” If, however, attention be also given to the spirit of the clause, it could, we feel, hardly be denied in the light of various official statements and actions on the part of tliis particular organisation that although the “plank” is capable of a very broad interpretation, the United Labor Party in framing tin's portion of its policy had before it the idea of a constitutional system of settling disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration. Failing the introduction of a more perfect system than that which is in use to-day. there can be no question, we should say, that the party even expected the present system always to be utilised with a view to arranging the settlement of any dispute instead of resort being had straightaway to a strike. That such is the position may be gathered frorii the absence of any denial when the point was raised at the Federation of Labor conference last July. In this connection the Hon. J. T. Paul, M.L.C., and Mr J. Robertson, 31. P., on behalf of. the United Labor Party, waited upon the Federation with a view to seeing whether a basis of amalgamation could be arranged. “But is it not a fact,” Mr Paul was asked, “that in the national programme of the United Labor Party one of the ‘planks’ is the settlement of all disputes under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act?” 3lr Paul apparently tried to steer clear of any definite acknowledgment that that was substantially the case. He merely said: “The position of the United Labor Party in regard to the matter is made clear in their constitution. They stand absolutely for industrial justice, and they would use the industrial forces if necessary to attain their object.” But the delegates of the Federation of Labor were, it seems, not at all satisfied with the reply. It was further asked of Mr Paul “whether in the event of a union of the Federation joining the United Labor Party it was absolutely essential that it must register under the Arbitration Act in order to settle a dispute—that was, by means of the Conciliation Council or the Arbitration Court?” Here Mr Robertson came to Mr Paul's rescue with the

assertion “that the United Labor Party was not binding any organisa- | tion to register under the Arbitration j i Act. . . There was a difference j between compulsory arbitration and ! voluntary arbitration.” But perhaps ' the most interesting statement of the : aims and aspirations of the United i Labor Party in this matter recenly | came from Professor Mills, the Naj tional Organiser. “It is,” he said, “distinctly understood that in the progress of the Labor movement, as the movement itself shall grow in power, conciliation and arbitration must become inevitable. . . At the same time, pending the time when the public judgment shall give final approval to a perfected form of conciliation and arbitration, the unions must not abandon the right t-o strike as a weapon of last resort.” Now it would, of course, be difficult to imagine how a satisfactory arrangement could have been drawn up on this as well as on many other points by the parties in view of tho policy of “industrial militancy,” about which the Federation of Labor preaches so much and the policy of “peace, ul settlement of all disputes,” which is part of the creed of the United Labor Party. The position seems all the more awkward when it is recalled that at its latest conference the Federation of Labor decided to ask all unions in the Federation to cancel their registration under tho I. C. and A. Act, and averred that its members believed that the Act “is detrimental to the best interests of the working classes and directly in opposition to the spirit of industrial unionism." And what do- we find to-day? The proposed joint platform, it may have been uoted, contains no special reference to the settlement of disputes by means of conciliation and arbitration. One of the objects of the suggested United Federation is “that it will always act with the end in view of securing to workers the full product of tlreir labor”; another is .“that the United Federation will leave the question of registration or non-registra-tion, or of cancelling registration under the Act with each union, but it will oppose the registration of any new union to succe.ed any union which may have cancelled its registration” : and other clauses deal with the steps to ho taken in case a strike is decided } upon. Is it any wonder, then, that a cry has been raised that the Federation of Labor has captured the United Labor Party ?