ALLEGED PERSECUTION

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 77, 1 April 1914, Page 10

ALLEGED PERSECUTION

MR. MORIARTY REPLIES TO CRITICISM ASSERTIONS AND ANSWERS. TO TUX EDITOR. Sir, — Seeing that you were well aware thai 1 was away from Wellington when thai young man, a cabinelmakei. ca'ied on you and gave his version of thi. a!legeil treatment metetl out to him by my union und myself, 1 should ha\\> thought that- common decency would have suggested to you that you should l'ufl'aiu trom writing a leading article on same until after my leturn and alter you had given me tiie opportunity of stating the facts of the case. By jour conduct you have given the lead to at least one other paper deafly loves unions) to write an article in keeping with your own. and based on the garbled vei'sion given to you. ' I truefc that this other paper will as readily copy this letter .and publish same in fairness to all concerned. Before stating the facts of this case 1 should like to ask both papers to answer the following questions. What was your object' in writing the articles you 'did? \Vas it to assist the cabiuetmakei hi question in getting Work ax his trade? Have you not succeeded in absolutely prohibiting him from doing so by the publicity your own ends) you bave given this matter? What has been the doctrine you have preached to the employing class since the strike? Have you not, in season and out. preached that they should give preference to those who worked during the strike? Aru not tiio strikers now members of the row Waterside Workers' Union and do you noL preach that one section should obtain employment to the detrilver.i of armtherV Do you know that the employeis have a black list and rei'l'se to give employment to any names appearing on that- list? Having worked on the whaives during the strike and '. therefore a preference man now, can thf> < cahinelmakor in question complain about (jcing depnvpcl of a living? ' : Il'p facts ot' the whole case arp as follow : — The Furniture Union took no part in the late strike, not even rendering any financial assistance. When the question of doing so was discussed at our meeting it was resolved that the funds should be used for the purpose of assisting any of our own members who might require same as a result, of the strike, and JS3 a week was to be paid to prevent any member from going to work on the wharves. The cabinet.rnakei; infoims you that he was out of work during the early part of the strike. If he was it wag his own fault, and had he called on me I could havegiven him several jobs to pick and choose from, and failing this then he was to receive, as plated, £3 per week. Under the terms of our award an employment book is kept at my office, wherein unemployed members arc asked to place their names, and if they comply wiUi this they get exemption, from subscriptions. A perusal ot this book will show that during the strike period nob a single cabinetmaker's name appears thereon. Surely these facts should convince you that this cabinetmaker preferred the wharves to his trade and was not forced to go there on accounb of not being able to obtain work at his trade. At a subneqnent meeting o! tho union it was reported that two other members had also gone to work on tho wharves. There is no use disguising the fact (and I will be sorry to attemptto do so), but it is recognised as au unpardonable offence .in the eyes'' of all unionists for a man to so tar forget himself as to take on the work of another who is out on strike. I tell you quite candidly that our union is a firm believer in tin's great principle ; co wb took legal advice to see it we could expel these members for their action. The advice was against us, but we were told that as the members had joined another union we could call on them to resign from ours. This we did. and I noticed that you published my letter asking your informant to do so. He has not complied with oui' request ; so he is still a member of the union, and if he had ii grievance against any of the members it was his place to leport the matter to the union and not run to you with same. i His statement that he obtained employment at his trade since the strike and worked thereat for seven week's surely shows that the union did not attempt to deprive him of his living. It is quite true that 1 visited the factory wherein he was working, and I may say that I visit that factory, among others, every month in the course of my duties, and 1 did riot go there specially because your informant was wo'-king there in order to have him turned out, as you would like the public to believe. _ As a matter of fact, he did not suit his employers, and I had the opportunity of replacing him. but I refused to do so simply and solely bcause 1 knew that we would be blamed for having turned him out. It is also a fact that_ immediately my back was turned your informant went to | the foreman and remarked that he supposed that his name was "Walker" as a result of seeing me in the 'factory, and then ho told all about himself. If there was any trouble 'then in that factory lip had himself to blame through his own imagination. He admits that he was not put oft', but left on his own account, so surely the union cannot be held to have deprived him of his living. The next statement, that he looked in vain for work for a fortnight, is contrary to fact. An employer rang me up and told me that he had promised to give him a start, and I told him that be could do so. I am given to understand that the only other man in this factory, and who happens to be the only nonunionist cabinetmaker in Wellington", gave his employer notice that if your informant started there he would knock oft ; so you see that even a non-unionist recognises the offence to be unpardonable. Before referring to what took place at Mr. Collie's, I want to substantiate what our president stated. We have never at any meeting advised the members to refuse to work with this man, and what course they adopt is no concern of ours. You might as well say that M/ve would punish members for working with him. I might also state that no officer of the union works at Afi\ Collie's, and .as I was away from Wellington I cannot be blamed for urging the, men there to refuse to work with your informant. Mr. Collie (who, by the way, should bo very guarded in his statements about the union) need not have had any fea«i about precipitating a strike had he taken the man on. His own men would apparently have left him, but no other cabinetmakers would have stopped work. We do not believe in the* "sympathy" or any oth^r brand of strike. We .do, however, believe, as stated before, that it is an unpardonable offence for any man to take on the work of another who has been forced out of work. As Mr. Collie well knew, all that woukl happen if any of his men ceased to work for him would be that not a, cabinetmaker in Australasia would be found to fill the place of any man that might have- left. The fact that only two cabinetmakers could bo found in the whole Dominion to go on the wharves is surely ptoof of this. Seeing that you have made such a pathetic appeal to the public not to tolerate this "triumph of tyranny," as you term it, what course would you advise, them .to. take to. stop, it <L A SHSfe 1 '

toll you thiy. thai we are not aiuliated to any other political or industrial organisation outside of our own trade, and we will promise you this, that if you are successful in getting the employers to force ub out on strike (this being the only inference to be taken fiom your aiticle), we will not even picket any factory, and will also give them your backing for what it is worth, and then see if you can succeed in getting unionists worthy of the name to say that they will forgivf anyone guilty of taking another man's place while on strike. In conclusion. 1 should like to remark that if our action in connection with this matter is Syndicalism, and you preach that it is. then all I haye to say is that jou h&»'e .succeeded in robbing this term of the nasty sting that was always associated! with the same. — 1 am, etc., D. MORIARTY. Secretary Wellington Furniture Union. Wellington, 31st March, 1914. [The victbn (for convenience, "A.8.") of tho Furniture Union members' persecution received an opportunity to answer Mr. Moriarty's assertions. Firstly, "A.8." said that he knew nothing whatever about the alleged arrange* ment to offer £3 a week "to prevent any member from going to work on the Wharves." He was absolutely out of work, and would have naturally preferred an engagement at his trade to the labour on the wharves. It is tru« that he did not ask Mr. Moriarty about a vacancy, but it was not unusual for a member to try to get a position without the secretary's 'aid. Many of the members were unwilling, to ■ have their names on the\ unemployment book,* it was a personal' matter ; they did not like the feel' of it. "A.8." went round to a number of shops, and was convinced that there was no opening in the trade before he looked for other work. When he returned to the cabinetmaking at the Wellington Furniture Company's factory, he was not troubled during the seven weeks preceding Mr, Moriarity's visit. Immediately afterwards he was "set" by the racn^ who made life so unpleasant that he had to leave. He had nnshakeable evidence that Mr. Moriarty spoke to the men about him. Regarding the assertion that during the ensuing fortnight an employer had promised "k> give him a start," "A.8." remarked that he did not know of any such promise, and he did not believe that any such words had been telephoned.]