OPINION IN WELLINGTON LABOUR CIRCLES.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12897, 31 August 1907, Page 10

OPINION IN WELLINGTON LABOUR CIRCLES.

(special to "T_tE rajtss. 1 *) WELLINGTON, August 30. Whatever may be the feeling in other parts of the colony, there can be no doubt that organised labour here is utterly surprised and dissati6&ea with tho new Arbitration Bill. The Trades Council met last night, and considered the question till nearly midnight, but it was decide<l not to say anything for tho present as to the line oi action to be taken. From some prominent members of the local unions, however, I gathered that some very strong language was used. Ono man whom 1 met said that some of tho provisions in the Bill were worthy of Russia. Another, who is the head ot one of the biggest unions, said the proposal to allow employers to deduct tines from mens wages was monotrous. "Don t you make any mistake aoout it," he said, •'Wo are not •load, and the Government will hear from us all right, and that very soon." This bpeaker said he was particularly di__atisH-d with tho nroviuion in regard to hues. The Labour people also <nd not like tbe new Boards. It was not fair, ho said, to ask threo workmen to faco tliree of their own employers across tho table in a disputo. There would also bo the difficulty about tho appointment of a chiirman. He complained bitterly about tho evasion of preference to unionists, and said that in coii-cquenco of ono clause in tho Bill, nearly twenty unions would be minus their secretaries. During tho afternoon 1 called upon Mr W. T. Voting, secretary of tho Federated Seamen's Union, but ho would say nothiug for publication. "That," he said, "was what wo decided

at tho meeting last night, and meantime my lips are sealed." I was able, however, to gather that Mr Young wa-s dissatisfied with the main provisions of the Bill. Mr David McLaren, ono of the recognised leaders of labour here, expressed the opinion that some features of tho Bill wero most mischievous. Ho instanced tho power to be given to employers to deduct industrial fines from the wages oi employees. Such a proI posal, ho said to a "Post" reporter, wo lid cause the organised labour of tho Old World, which was considered to be more conservative than Labour in the colonies, to endeavour to kick out of power any Government that would make such a monstrous proposal. Personally, ho strongly opposed tho whole element of collecting fines by the imprisonment of workers, or by the insidious suggestion of employers stopping tho amounts out of wages, for by so doing, they were not only affecting the living of the men directly concerned, but were mortgaging the living of their wives and families. Surely the moral assent of tho people of the colony to such a proposal was impossible, and it must meet with the strongest condemnation of all trades unionists. He would sooner leave the colony than assent to living along 6uch lines. Clause 53, which aimed at paid officers of unions was, he considered, a piece of Gilbertian legfnlatiou. It was a laughable and ridiculous idea to suggest such a restriction against workers, whilst employers' associations openly stated that they had paid organisers and secretaries. "As a paid officer of a union," 6aid Mr McLaren, "lean only treat this proposal with contempt. I have been a labour agitator nearly all my life, and will continue so whilst there are wrongs to right, despite the opinions of other people." The references in the Bill to changing the character and scope of the Boards and the Court ought, he said, to bo weighed with tbe utmost care by labour bodies. They were practically of a revolutionary character, so far as industrial law was concerned, and it remained to be seen whether tho provisions were not of a distinctly reactionary character.