ART UNIONS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 78, 3 April 1926, Page 15

ART UNIONS.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—"The Small Gambler" puts forth his erroneous views concerning the above subject. He states that an insignificant section of the public has turned its attention to harmless lotteries. Should he turn up the result of the last poll he will find that the so-called "insignificant section" completely overwhelmed his party. After making it clear that he is very uneasy about the way we are going to handle the matter he writes: "It would be far better for the worker to part with 1/ a week in lotteries than spend it in drink." Here he conies over to the insignificant party (?) and states that money spent on drink is worse than spending it on lotteries. Why does he not keep to his own party and leave drink out of the question? Let mc state a few facts about art unions. In the last issue of the "Star" £10,500 was advertised as prize money in only three lotteries. With expenses and profits added the amount would be no less than £12,500. Practically the whole of this sum is taken directly out of the pockets of the working men, who are always complaining of the high cost of living. Why do they then lay their money against such odds which they know to be so great? There is only one way to deal with art unions, and the'sooner we get rid of them the sooner the-people who regularly invest in these lotteries will come to their senses and see how they have wasted their earnings. Then there are a few others like the "Small Gambler," who will imitate the worm and go underground, and showing their sporting spirit will endeavour to beat us at our own game. I am, etc., ANTI-ART UNION.