The record-union., 1893-05-22
LABOR CONFLICT IN AUSTRALIA
How Employers We're Forced to Com
blne Against the Trade Unions.

How Employers We're Forced to Com
bine Against the Trade Unions.
In no part Of the world has the
struggle between organized labor and or
gained capital been more severe, deter
mined and continuous, during the past
five years, than in Australia There has
been no actual bioodshed, as in the case
OF the Homestead strikes in America, but
tnere nave been present most of the other
elements of war-bitter animosity, cease
less vigilance, engendered by mutual
dlstruSt, herce recrimination, widespread
distress and ruin, involving not merely
the combatants but thousands of inno-
cents as well.
1t has been noted that III no single in
stance did these disputes originate from
or hlnge upon disagreement as to
wages. brushing aside few minor issues
| lhNolVed, we find that the one cause of
| quarrel throughout was the demand on
the part OF the strikers for the exclusive
recognition Of unionism and the firm de-
termination of the employers to refuse to
concede that demand. Had the unionists
won the day, there can be no doubt that
every worker in Australia earning his
| !lVlng by the sweat of his brow would
nave been compelled to join one or other
OF the labor organizations and place him
self under the domination of the small
cnques of individuals in the big cities
VINO make of labor agitation an exhilar-
atlng and lucrative profession.
10 show how thoroughly labor militant
in Australia has forced employers to com
olne In selt-detense, let me take the great
Wool-growing industry, which adds
yearly to the wealth Of these colonies
from 92O, 600, 900 to 60, ZOO, 900. The leth-
argy and lack of cohesion among the
pastoralists enabled the Shearers' Union
three years ago to acquire a position of
almost hnlnntln
boasted that they controlled the sheariug
IN 10 per cent. of the wool-sheds. In the
| framing of the rules which regulated in
every detail the manner in which the
shearlng was to be conducted, the en-
ployer had no voice whatever: he had
either to accept them or to enter upon the
almost impossible task of fighting the
whole union single-handed. Every
shearer was compelled to take out his
union ticket, paying, besides entrance
fees, 81 per annum for the privilege; and
and the man who refused to submit to
this blackmailing process was declared a
parlah by whose side. no unionist would
work or eat, was bounded from WOOL
sned without the chance of securing en-
| ployment, and was finally driven ont of
| the industry.
The weapon of the boycott was ruth
Iessly ankle against employers and nom
! unlonlst shearers used, and some concep-
ulon OF tne VIDE -reactlng development of
| the system will be derived from an az
tract from a manifesto issued by the
/ Shearers' Union: I'VE intend" ran this
official document, ito teach the sauatter
the folly of resistance to our combina-
ton. He shall not be allowed TO shear
his wool except by union labor. But if
he should succeed in getting the wool of
the 6heep's back. it may rot in his sheds.
for we shall prevent the carriers taking
| 1t to the railway; and should he succeed
In getting it to the railway, we shall pre-
vent 1t going to sea, for we shall call out
the sailors and the officers and if it sails
! we shall prevent its discharge in London,
for we shall call out the dock -laborers.' y
This announcement on the part of the
trade-unionists of their deliberate inteu-
ton to inflict a reeling blow upon the
! great staple producing industry of Aus
tralla for no more important reason than
that single back-block squatter might
! have refused compliance with the union
| ist demands was the death-blow to the
new trade unionism in these colonies.
1t ettectually ranged public opinion upon
the other side, and, when the actual at
| tempt to enforce the threat was made,
the SheaTers' Union found itself face to
face with a combination of pastoral en-
| ployers infinitely stronger than that OF
workmen.-Edmund Mitchell in the En-
gineering Magazine.