DEMONS!RATION BY UNIONS

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 143, 13 March 1931, Page 10

DEMONS!RATION BY UNIONS

Opposition to Proposed Wage Reduction THREAT AGAINST GOVERNMENT Mr. Forbes Determinedly Answers Deputation Unprecedented scenes were witnessed in the grounds of Parliament House yesterday morning, when a crowd of Labour supporters and Communists numbering about 3000 issued a -direct threat to the Prime Minister, through its spokesmen, that the organised Labour movement in New Zealand would oppose to the uttermost the proposed 10 per cent, reduction in wages, and that it would take steps to bring about effective retaliation. ,

For over an hour the area in front of the main entrance to the House was thronged with a gathering bearing banners and a tattered Red Flag on which was worked a hammer and a sickle. The demonstration started as a monster deputation from the Alliance of Labour conference, and, although it was orderly throughout, both speakers and those in the crowd made it quite clear that as far as lay in their power they intended to fight the proposed wage reductions to the last. Traffic was disorganised in the city streets by. a march of about 1500 men from the Trades Hall to Parliament House. They were headed by a man playing the bagpipes and numerous banners bearing the captions, “No Wages Reductions” and “Work or Sustenance” were carried. Wending a slow way through the main streets, the procession gained in numbers. The route was lined by people who came out of shops, and balconies and windows were used as vantage points to view one of the strangest processions that has been seen in Wellington’s streets for many years. There were occasional cheers from the marchers and familiar remarks were passed tp men on the footpaths. Crowd Attracted. Parliament House grounds contained many people long before the procession marched through the gates. It went up the main carriage-way and halted in front of the entrance. By this time, the demonstration had attracted hundreds of people from the streets, and although the social lutf! had been prepared to receive the deputation, «dt was realised that it would be far too small to hold even a quarter of those who were clamouring at the doors. The entrances to the House were closely guarded by the police, , who were also scattered among the crowd, and it was then requested that the Prime Minister should hear the speakers on the front steps. Frequent appeals had to be made for quietness even before the Prime Minister made an appearance. The crowd, or a section of it spent the time in singing revolutionary songs and giving cheers for the Soviet Republic and the workers’ republic.” Finally a place was cleared on the steps and the crowd was told that the Prime Minister would come outside, but that the leaders of the demonstration were anxious that he should have a fair hearing. A young man mounted the steps and urged the crowd that it should do more than demonstrate and that the workers should bring about a general strike as a protest against the cut in wages. A large proportion of the men were wearing red ribbons in their coats on which was inscribed “No Wages Reduction,’ and they were in the front of the gathering behind the Red Flag. Feeling ran high among this section and at one stage it looked as though a difficult situation would arise. However, the statement that the Prime Minister would hear the deputation outside had a temporarily calming effect, but Mr. Forbes was greeted in a far from friendly manner when he at last appeared. There were jeers and calls from both men and women, of whom there was a large number, and their voices were raised in shrill cries. , Labour’s Stand Decided. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, who had been given a rousing reception earlier, appealed for a quiet hearing for the speakers. He said the deputation was representative of the industrial organisations of the whole Dominion. They had come to "protest strongly against the proposed wage reduction, affirming that the position could be met by other means. Mr. A. Cook, president of the Alliance of Labour, said the workers could not be expected to submit to a reduction in wages as was proposed. He spoke particularly of the general ing class, which he said would suffer very much. He quoted figures showing how a man’s wages would be reduced by means of the cut of 10 per cent., adding that the single men would be in a very bad position, quite apart from the hardship that would be inflicted upon the married men. It was proposed to reduce the wages of single men on relief works by 46 per cent, to 9/- a day. The Unemployment Act had had the effect of smashing unions and reducing wages, as was feared in the beginning. An appeal was made by Mr. Cook for a reconsideration by the Government of' its proposals. He was loudly applauded when he said that' the people would not submit to having the standard of living reduced to that of coolies, and he added that the workers refused to ; sacrifice themselves and their families in order that overseas bondholders should be satisfied. “Labour Will Have Say.” “If the Government proceeds with its policy of cutting wages the Labour movement is going to have its say in the matter,”, declared Mr. J. Roberts, secretary of the alliance. He said the conference had discussed the question, and the Labour movement had declared that any member of Parliament who voted for wage reductions would ’ have directed ,

against him every penny the Labour movement possessed to hurl him from his political position. His own opinion was that war debts would have to be repudiated before the world could return to prosperity, Mr. Roberts added. Arguments for the reduction of wages had been the fall in the price of primary products, the need for paying interest on the national debt, and the fact that the standard of living had to be reduced. If wages were reduced thousands of farmers would go bankrupt as the workers would not be able to buy their products. He considered that the Government was merely carrying out the policy that Sir Otto Niemeyer had advocated for Australia, but his opinion was that the people of New Zealand should be considered before overseas ■ bondholders. If wages were reduced by 10 per cent, the workers were going to be asked to put a reduction on all rentals, whether State, municipal or private. The workers were not going to. be driven into a position f economic starvation without taking some redress. Whatever differences there had been in the Labour movement had been removed following the -Prime Minister’s declaration which had driven the factions together. Where there was no hope there was no fear, and the workers had arrived at that stage. That would be the attitude with which they would fight the issue. Mr. T. Bloodworth, representing the skilled trades, and Mr. A. McLagaii, representing the miners, also spoke. Mr. McLagan said the miners would not take the reduction lying down, and they were prepared to take action if the Prime Minister was so unwise as to force the reduction on them. The conference had drawn up a plan for combined action. They could stop the reduction if they were united. Cost-of-Living Fall. The Prime Minister, who was given .a fairly patient hearing, after a prelimin-: ary outburst of jeering and hooting, said it was no use shutting their eyes to the position that had to be met. It was composed of plain facts. In the first place the revenue of the country had fallen seriously, and the prices received for primary products had dropped by £20,000,000. He asked his listeners if they, as sensible people, would be prepared to carry on on the old basis with such a decline in income. No man who was honest and sincere, and who was trying to do his best for the country could take any other course than that proposed. It was no use asking that wages should he maintained at the present level if it meant that men would be thrown out of work. It was for the leaders of the Labour movement to disclose the true facts to the people they represented. The Government had done everything in its power, and more than past Governments had done, to rectify the position. In England, under a Labour Government, the number of unemployed had risen from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000, and in Australia, where Labour ruled, there was 23 per cent, of the population out of employment. They had refused to lower wages there. Since last year there had been a fall of over 15 per cent, in the food group of the cost of living, and in the other groups the reduction had been nine per cent The cost of living would be further reduced if overhead costs were cut down. To-day the man who was receiving the same wages as he got last year Was about 10 per cent, better off. No one was more anxious to do what was best for the country than he, said Mr. Forbes, who concluded by asking that everyone should pull together. Mr. Forbes finished'amid some jeering. A section of the crowd counted him out, and after he had been escorted back to the building by two policemen Mr. Roberts again addressed the crowd, and appealed for co-operation in fighting the wage reductions. The gathering then broke up. OPPOSITION PLANNED Conference Decision The Alliance of Labour conference resumed its sitting after the deputation to the Prime Minister yesterday morning. The Press Committee informed a “Dominion” reporter, when the conference rose in the afternoon that the reply of the Prime Minister to the deputation had been considered most unsatisfactory, on the ground that Mr. Forbes had not given any justification for reduction in wages. The reply, the conference held, had been more > the nature of a political address than an economic reason for the reductions. The conference, it was announced, will finalise a plan of campaign to oppose the intentions of the Government. The conference also discussed the Unemployment Act, and especially its administration by the board. The delegates were reported to have expressed the opinion that the money subscribed by the workers was being paid to private employers and local bodies, and at the same time was depriving the workers of the - rates of wages laid down by Arbitration Court awards. The conference was unanimous in condemning the Unemployment Act and its administration’, and adopted a resolution that a new Act should be framed.