THE LABOR CRISIS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 511, 27 September 1890, Page 3

THE LABOR CRISIS.

MR CHAMPION ON THE CRISIS.

Mr Champion, a Labor advocate who may be ranked next to Mr John Burns, and is How in Australia, has been addressing himself to both sides in the present crisis. The following is a condensed report of a very thoughtful lecture on the present crisis—a lecture which is deserving of the widest publicity:— As I see it, the quarrel here is not upon any trifling matter of detail as regards work or wages. The immediate cau-e of the outbreak of hostilities, indeed, was petty enorgh, but it needs no prophetic insight to discover that no lasting peace can be declared unlit the whole question cf the power and position of trades unions has been clearly defined in a manner acceptable to both aides, or until one side has been completely beaten. The employers say in effect “We do not object to trades unions. We are in favour of them. But we object to an arbitrary and unfair nse of the power cf unions.” They allege instances of such abuse, and say the time has come to draw the line. The workmen say in effect, “We who are trade unionists object in the interests of unionism to any abuse in its powers. But the instances given are instances of a wholly legitimate and essential use rf our combinations. You emp'oyers are really trying to wrest from u, our only defence a-ainst grinding

poverty, and sooner than give it up we will fight to the death.” Between the parties so opposed, and already heated by the rising of the fighting passion that turns man into beast, I come, knowing well since it is by no means the first time I have undertaken it, how thankless is the task of telling the truth to both sides in a quarrel. I say, I too am in favour of trade unionism, and irreconcilably opposed to any unfair use of it, but that th fore we can get an inch further we must all make up our minds what trade unionism is, what powers of unions employers may rightfully resent, what powers workmen may rightfolly claim. Since the workmen know that I am their friend and the most advanced and trsclute trade unionist in Australia, I will commence by asking them to agree with me, first, that it is possible that unionism, hk e every other good thing, may ke abused, that workmen by simply combining obtain DO divine light to do anything that m 8 y chance to suit them, and that he is the bg.t Unionist who keeps trade unions scrupulously within the Hues laid down by common een M end bones'y, for strictly within these lines alone can the principles we hold dear flourhh. Further, I ask them to admit with me th aaa truthsl. That Industry cannot be carried on without discipline, and that even in a cooperative workshop someone must be head, g That the head must have the umljeputed right of dismissing men who are bzy, onru'y, or for any similar just reason. 3, That until the workmen have the sense to r ua co Operative workshops this head must be the pmp'oyer or bi, nominee; and befor e I heir their answer I venture to say tbe re (, n 0 intelligent and cool-headed work man fa Australia who will deny any one o f those three proposition,. Now as a trade unionist of the most extreme school, I ask the trade unionists of this country to agree with me further: —1 That no trade unio n j a t should a’afrn the right to dictate to a n emp'ryer whom he shall employ. 2. That no trade unionist should c!a : m the right to demand that an rmployer, before taking on a man, shall ask him if he belong, to the union or not. 3 That a non-nnionist has a right to take work wherever he can get it. 4. That no trade union claim, the right to spp’y force, or the threat cf force, or any form of persuasion other than that admitted and defined by law, to men who are not unionist,. And again, I venture to assert that every experienced trade unionist will agree to

these four proposition,; and say, further, that he who denies them does au injury to the trades union cause which no amount of zeal and benevolent intention can repair. And here I will repeat and emphasise what I have eaid elsewhere, and which cannot be said too often in times like these. In a country which is governed by a free and democratic constitution every logical man must respect, support, and defend the law, or boldly and honestly declare himself a rebel. Nothing can be more unfair, than at the same time to claim the protection of the law yourself and deny it to your opponent. The same law that legalises the trade unionist’s position defines how far he may go in persuading a non-unionist to leave or refuse work. Is Australia a free country I Does the constitution secure to workmen enough political power to change the law regulating trade unions or anything e'se if they want it chanced ? Are your members of Parliament ready to obey yonr mandates when you take the trouble to issue your orders ? There can be but one answer. I f.ankly say that it strikes me forcibly that both the character of your laws and some of yonr legislators will bear improvement. But practically, you have all the power there is to have, and if you want any laws changed you have no one to blame but yourselves if the changes are not made. Under the institutions of a country like Bussia I should be a rebel, and very likely plot in secret aeainst autocratic rulers. Even in Australia I can conceive it to be within the bounds of possibility that under certain circumstances a man might feel bound to declare himself a rebel against the law, and reject its protection. But in no place can yon eat your cake and have it. If you claim the protection of the law as in Factory Acte, you must respect it altogether. Yon cannot pick and choose. Now-I turn to ths employer,, and say I am willing tn believe that they are honorable, humane, and intelligent men, who know that experience everywhere show, that without a Strong combination amongst workmen wages under the competitive sys em must fall to the starvation level, for even the best of em-

ployers is compelled to stop paying good wage, Uniea, the pressure of trade, unionism is

app’led effectively to hi; nnwrupulaus rival, whose inline greed for wealth tempts him to ent down prims and wages. And believing them when they say they ere in favor of trade ooidniam. I eonfiientiv ask them to agree with me that: —l. AH men giving services for pay have an absolute right to combine to pm. tno'a their mutual advantage, and to make «>iph>on cgus« against any oppresaion or ininatioe suffered by any one ef them. 2, No fair dealing employer baa anything to fear from a properly managed onion. 3. If a man it di ami seed unjustly from the employment which gives him his daily living, it ia the clear doty of the unions to aland by him. 4 Ju a free country the fleet right of a workman, ihilohiat or ponpnioniet, ia to take work when and where ha can get it, end to leave work (the agr-ed on notice being given) when he ghopaea, far any reason he chooses. or without giving a reason. Again l aay that,without awaiting their reply, I know that no employer will dissent from there four elementary propositions, nor refuse to agree with me that anyone who might do eo ia an enemy of employers’ interests in aa much aa he is attacking the essential principles of trade Bmonism,8 monism, and by his injustice and unfairness iving excuse to the workmen to make reprisals. For what does a denial of these propoai ions involve’ Obviously, that the workman is not at liberty to say when or how, Or with whom, he shall combine, when and where he shall taka work, when and why he shall atop warking. It would be an insult to the intelligence of Australian employers to suggest that they meditate a return to the days of forced labor, or want to re-establish ths concn. which is a type of ths eoonomio oppressions that were stopped for ever by the French Bevolu'-ion. It is a waste of time to iitafi the possibility that employers here have hot learnt that a man may not do as he likes with h>s own, and that his right to control, his property directly depends on thia condition, that he respects the opinion of the community which "gives him any rights at all, pnd which, by legalising trade unions, has Bilslakably declared that the workman is and is entiled to be consulted as to the its of the employer’ power, Sow, I will turn again to the workmen, and ask them to obs=tve that I claim for them to the very fullest extent this right which it is the intention of the law to allow

them—namely, “ to fellow the dictates of their own will with respect to their own aetioa, and to combine With others to promotj their mutual advantage.” They will know when Isay I claim it for them I do Mi mean merely that I am willing to write obout ii. I am willing, nay, eager, to help Rum to lirawfa for it, tod to (train on their

behalf in that struggle, if it cannot ba avoided, all the infltence I can exert in England and on the Continent of Europe and in America. But on this condition only, that they act with scrupulous f iirnees and firmness, with true courage, and that of the rarest kindmoral courage. The workmen of Australia are intelligent enough to know that every event haa a oaose, which we find if we look for it. This combination of employers, which has sprung up to oppose the workmen of a country where labor is more powerful and more respected than in any other, has its cause. I think I know what that cause is, and, so believing, I should be a coward and a traitor to the workmen here if I did not tell the whole truth, however unpleasant it may sound. What has driven the representative capitalists of Australia into union against you is precisely the same cause that drives you workmen into unions against employers—fear that the power controlled by the other side is being used in a harsh, unfair, and arbitrary manner. I do not say that you have given good grounds fur that fear. If you have, heavy is your responsibility, tor you have put an argument into the mouth cf every man who wants to show that labor is not yet fit to wield the dominant power which, passing from warrior to king, king to noble, noble to landlord, landlord to capitalist, is snrely, in the long result of time, the inbetitance of the working class. It is, I humbly believe, decreed in the nature of things, that no man, no class can wield that power long unless it use that power unjustly. Therefore bitter would be my disappointment if I were to learn that you have abused it. I cannot know what ground there is for this accusation, but you, you know. In your secret heart each one of you can answer these ques ions I put to you, and which I solemnly charge you that you answer with perfect sincerity : Has the trades union organisation ever been nsed wantonly to harass and injure employers? Has its power been prostituted to trifling and ignoble ends ? Has it b?en devoted to the interests of the better paid workmen to the neglect of the men and women in the sweated trades ? Has it been degraded to haggling over petty matters, wh n it might have been used to educate, to uplift, to purify the whole working class ? I put you on your honour to answer before your conscience truthfully to these questions. I have an absolute faith in the righteousness of the trade union principle, I believe it has only to be wisely and temperately urged to make converts. I know that men who are forced to become unionists, not because their totelligenoes are convinced, but because they fear ill-treatment, are no real or permanent gain to our cause, and if their nominal adherence to a union gives, an apparent strength for the moment, it is ultimately a source of weakness. I know it may be unpopular for me to say this at the moment. But I say it advisedly, and I call on every experienced trade unionist to have the pluck to say it too, for he wilt know it is true, and know also that it is his sacred duty to go to almost any length to prevent any suspicion of unfairness resting on trade unionism.

I want to say a farther word to you about these non-unionists. I want to m ike them unionists, and 1 know the worst way to do that is to bully them, and the best way is to argue with them. I can remember the time when I, through ignorance, was against trades unionism, and I suppose that many of you unionists, too, were once outside the fold. If I had been bullied I should have been against unionism now. The same holds good of you, I hope, for I don’t like men who can be bullidd into things of which their intelligence does not approve. I want you to consider what is the reason why these mnnnionists are not converts to our view on the matter. It may be that they have not been argued with. In that case the fault is more yours and mine than theirs. It may be that they were too hungry to listen to the appeal of reason and honor. In that case the fault is very much yours and mine, for the trdes unionism that has not found a remedy for such hunger should not have satisfied us. It may be that they would have joined unions but were kept out by the entrance fee. Again, trade unionism is at fault, for though it is right enough to regulate the numbers admitted to a trade it is wrong to do so without simultaneously making "provision for those excluded. Finally, it may bo that, knowing better, and without the excuse of hunger, they have deliberately gone against trades unionism after we have argue! with them, and such we must " boycott.” Now, seeing yesterday that one of your local ministers of religion had strongly condemned “ boycotting,” it reminded me that St. Paul was the first advocate of

boycotting ” io the sense in whioh I and all trade unionists advocate and defend it. Speaking of tho’e who were undermining and destroying one of his organisations, just as non-unionists of the stubborn kind undermine ours, or would do if we let them, ho says, “Now if any man obey not our word by the epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that be may be ashamed. Yet eoppt him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” That ex ct'y hits the mark. If argument and example and persuasion fail to make a man turh from the errors of his way*, we must, In my opinion, *• have no company with him," bnt we must honestly do it with the sole intention of making him ashamed, and not front motives of hostility or vengeance. If we do we shall oorne to the same p.ss as the boycotting has brought Ireland at times, and raise worse evils than even non unionism. For the bottom truth in all this Is that there is no salvation for society or for labor in any of the mechanical panaceas that are preached, such as Trades Unionism, Cooperation, or Socialism. I have had some experience, and it teaches me that all depends on the spirit that may or may not be behind these panaceas, When the spirit in which these things are practised is a pure and nob'e One, they contain the possibility of the redemption of the world. When the spirit diesjout of them they may be' as fair on the outside as Dead Sea app'esj but they are nothing in reality but dust and ashes. If you Australian workmen are set upon establishing a Holy Alliance of the English speaking people of the eqrth —and you may do it if you will—its two fundamental principles must be that it truly relies for its p -wer on moral, not physical, force, and refuses to treat even its opponents as anything but brothers.