The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1967. No Time To Stop Work

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31316, 11 March 1967, Page 12

The Press SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1967. No Time To Stop Work

Mr Holyoake could scarcely have expected the Federation of Labour to call off its planned stopwork meetings when he made his appeal to the president of the federation (Mr Skinner). It was, nevertheless, proper for Mr Holyoake to give Mr Skinner the chance to reconsider his decision and to point out that the meetings can achieve nothing except inconvenience to the public, loss of production, and loss of income.

There is mounting evidence of opposition to the meetings, both within and outside the Labour movement The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Watt) has said that the protest would have been better in his view, if the meetings had been held outside working hours. The Tauranga branch of the Labourers’ Union opposes the meetings; “there is “ general agreement within the branch that this type “of meeting will not assist the situation . The Public Services Association is not supporting the meetings; nor are all the unions affiliated to the F.O.L.

The Roman Catholic journal, the “ Tablet ”, said the stop-work meetings smacked of a “ thinly-veiled “threat” suggesting the serving of notice on the Government that any further measures to dampen down internal spending through indirect taxation that would hit the worker’s pocket could be met by widespread industrial unrest, “if not by wide- “ spread strikes ”. In this age, such meetings were “particularly childish, stupid and inept”, said the “ditorial, which concluded with an “ appeal ” to the F.O.L: “please grow up”. The “New Zealand Methodist ” said that the new era of “austerity, “ if it <*an be called even that—restraint is perhaps a “better word —” had caused some shrill protests and a few foolish threats—’* none more foolish than “ the suggestion from the F.O.L for a national stop- “ work in protest against the Government’s action ”, Notwithstanding the censure and disunity already caused by the meetings they could still serve a useful purpose if they were used to give trade unionists a better understanding of the country’s economic plight It seems likely, however, that the tone of Mr Skinner’s meetings will be political rather than economic, and that nothing constructive will emerge from the meetings. The upshot of such a series could only be further dissension between the industrial and political wings of the Labour movement, strife within the F.O.L’s ranks, and public resentment of the F.O-L’s activities. Is Mr Skinner big enough to steer away from this course?