Mr Watt and the “plans” for stoppages

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33579, 6 July 1974, Page 12

Mr Watt and the “plans” for stoppages

Of all the dramatic events on the industrial and political scene in the last week perhaps the most astonishing was the statement by the Minister of Labour (Mr Watt) on Thursday evening. After meeting representatives of the Federation of Labour and the Wellington Trades Council, Mr Watt said that the 24-hour stoppage in Wellington .would continue and could not be called off because plans for the stoppage had gone too far. In fact, Mr Watt said, plans had been drawn up “ two or three weeks agp ”. These do not sound like the words of a man in a Ministry led by Mr Kirk, who has spoken out so strongly against the stoppages. If the Minister of Labour accepts that stoppages should be continued for no better reason than that they have been arranged, he does not deserve the confidence of electors. He does not even deserve the confidence of union members, many of whom are obviously dissatisfied with the way in which they have been called off their jobs. When Mr Watt added that plans were drawn ud “ two or three weeks ” ago. he must have recalled the march on Parliament Buildings by members of two unions on June 10. No other member of the Government chose to meet the protesters, and the unions rejected his own offer to meet a deputation later. He had plenty of time to attempt to avert a repetition of stonpages on a greater scale, and might well have made the same proposals that he apparently made on behalf of the Government in Auckland this week.

In the Canterbury district the ordinary union members—not to mention union executives —seem to have been confused by the call for stoppages; and whatever view they have on the argument over the use of court injunctions—extremely rare as it is —many members resent the failure of their leaders to consult them. They had “ two or three weeks ” to do so. It is trite, and wrong, to say that the unions are ruling the Government and the country. But it is not unreasonable to supoose that some union leaders are exploiting the normal solidarity of unionism in a way that exceeds the authority given by their membership. Mr Watt is a member of a Government which might be expected to preserve the rights of union members to withdraw labour when they think it lawful and proper, not just because they are instructed to do so.