LABOUR DISCORD

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 52, 25 November 1930, Page 10

LABOUR DISCORD

Attitude of Alliance BID FOR DOMINANCE Opinion Among Unions A WIDENING BREACH Through its attitude to the Unemployment Act in general, and the method of appointing workers' representatives to the board in particular, the New Zealand Alliance of Labour has uncovered differences which have long existed between it and other labour organisations. Unionists throughout the country have for some time been concerned over the trend of events, and although an effort has obviously been made to cast a veil over the growing apprehension, it remained for the alliance itself to excite the open hostility of another powerful section of the Labour movement. The opinion in Labour circles is that the rupture in the movement could not have been delayed much longer, in view of the policy of centralising power in its own hands which the alliance has obviously be»n following through a small coterie at Dominion headquarters. Ihe alliance claims to represent 50,000 workers and its leaders have been making an obvious attempt to dominate the Labour movement in spite of the fact that the Trades and Labour Councils of Auckland. Wellington and Christchurch outnumber it both in the number of unions and in the numerical total of those unions affiliated. according to a union secretary in Auckland who recently had occasion to administers a rebuke to the alliance for its self-appointment as the mouthpiece of the Labour interests of the country. Question of Control. It is generally 'conceded that the progress of tlie Labour movement has been made possible by the solidarity of its component parts, and in the past each organisation has professed the single aim of working for the benefit of the workers as a whole. There is an impression among members of the Labour Party that having achieved so much, a certain section, from which the alliance is not excluded, is aiming at securing the upper hand in matters of control. It is therefore not unnatural that those who are most interested in the unity of the movement are concerned at the latest role adopted by the leaders of an organisation whose watchword has in the past been democratic rule and full cooperation. Whatever mav be the defects of the Unemployment Act which has been the immediate cause of the trouble, most organised and unorganised workers throughout the country are prepared to acknowledge that it is' the first step toward meeting the problem of the workless from a national angle. The Act was designed to offer direct help to the workers, but the Alliance of Labour has announced flatly through its leaders, that “no worker in his right senses can give his full support to this piece of legislation.” The alliance leaders state that the Act was placed on the Statute Book against the wishes of their organisation, and that they will oppose it in its present form as being “unjust and inequitable.” In doing this the alliance asserts that it is expressing the opinion of the Labour movement throughout the Dominion. That this is not so is borne out by the opposition to the attitude of the alliance which has come from all parts of New Zealand. There has recently been talk of an open and definite split between the alliance and the Trades and Labour Council. which the alliance has reproved for presuming to voice views which do not coincide with its own. but which, nevertheless. do represent the opinion of a larger number of workers than, that owing direct allegiance to the alliance itself. One Trades and Labour Council official stated in Wellington recently that his body was now affiliated with the alliance in name only. “Civil Servant” Workers. Whereas Mr. A. Cook, president of the Alliance of Labour, considers that Mr. W. Bromley and Mr. O. Mcßrine, the two workers’ representatives on the Unemployment Board, will be regarded by the majority of unionists as nothing more or less than civil servants and not true representatives of the Labour movement, his opinion on this point is not endorsed by a great many of the craft unions. The first meeting of the Unemployment Board will be held to-day, but the alliance is still set in the attitude of obstruction it has adopted. On the contrary there is a widespread feeling among Labour organisations that the board should be given every chance to prove itself. While the alliance is urging its followers—who, incidentally, will be those most likely to benefit under the Act—not to co-operate with the board in any way, the Trades and Labour Council is prepared to assist and it has made known its attitude to its members. It appears that the alliance took it upon itself to start a campaign against the Act because it could not have its way in the election of workers’ representatives to the board, and it is particularly annoyed because other sections of the movement have seen fit to remind it that it is not the dominating factor in Labour affairs. Mr.. Cook has even gone so far as to accuse the Trades and Labour Council of assisting the Government in denying the workers “one of their most cherished rights, namely the right to select their own representatives.” Differences of opinion apparently do not stop at this point. It has been common knowledge for some time that the alliance has not been friendly to the' Parliamentary Labour Party. .Mr. J Roberts, secretary of the alliance. has forcibly expressed his wonder at the Labour Party’s action, or inaction, in the House when the Bill was before Parliament last session. On the other hand, members of the Parliamentary Labour Party, who have a large following among the workers of the Dominion, are not satisfied with the role being played by the alliance, and it is understood that it resents strongly the attempt by the alliance to force the hand of the Parliamentary Labour representatives. Support for the Act. Although the alliance maintains that the Labour Party should have commented upon the method of appointing representatives to the board when the measure was before’the House, the following comment by Mr. J. Purtell. a Trades and Labour Council supporter, is of interest: “It would be the height of insanity to do anything now that would kill the Act. I certainly suggest that the unions should pay the levy and that everything possible should be done to have work provided without delay. On all the divisions taken during rhe open conference, we defeated the Alliance of Labour, and there was no resolution suggesting that the Act should be boycotted.” He added that even if the Parliamentary Labour Party failed to comment upon the method of election during the debate in the House, it could not be blamed in view of the rather difficult wording of the relevant phrase. There is also the Communist element in Labour circles to bo contended with at the moment, for although some years ago there was a possibility that it would be absorbed in the Labour movement, the opinion now seems to he that it will do more harm than good to the workers of the country. The Communist following is small, but its voice is loud and its propaganda far-flung. It certainly finds no favour among the Parliamentary La hour Party and many of the unions, al though it cannot be denied that its influence has made itself felt among rh«* Labour ranks. It thus appears that the New Zealand Labour movement hns reached a point nt which a definite decision must be reached upon many issues <tt present tending to cause disruption, and it appears that the position is not entirely dissimilar to that in England some years ago.