Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MINERS MEET.

STRIKE PROPOSAL.

Heavy Majorities Against Stoppage.

LEADERS' PLAIN HINT.

(United P.A.—Electric Telegraph—Copyright)

(Received 10.30 a.m.) SYDNEY, this day. Aggregate meetings of miners at all centres indicated a division of opinion among the men concerning the advisability of adopting the recommendation of the Central Council of the Federation for a general strike. Generally speaking the result of the voting was against the strike proposal. An outstanding feature of the meetings almost everywhere was the great numbers of miners, many of them unemployed, who refrained from voting. At Ccssnock the vote in favour of striking was 677 to 124. AVest Wallsend supported the strike by 154 votes to 10, and at Lithgow by a small majority a similar decision was reached. At Kurri, and in the lower fields around Newcastle, as well as on the South Coast the strike plan was rejected by big majorities. Woonona voted 7i>o to 250 against the strike, and Wallsend 294 to 7 against. . Ten thousand coal miners employed on the, Newcastle and Maitland field* held meeting* yesterday and considered their attitude toward, the proposal "to call a general strike throughout Australia as a protest against the reduction of the basic wage. The men were anything but unanimous. Their leaders informed them that in the event of a strike they would have to fend for themselv'es, as there was no money in the unions' coffers.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19320915.2.93

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 219, 15 September 1932, Page 7

Word Count
230

MINERS MEET. Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 219, 15 September 1932, Page 7

MINERS MEET. Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 219, 15 September 1932, Page 7