Evenung post. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1914. A UNION'S TYRANNY

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 77, 1 April 1914, Page 6

Evenung post. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 1914. A UNION'S TYRANNY

Mr. D. Moriarty, the modest secretary of the Wellington Furniture Union, in this issue severely scolds The Post for an unpardonable piece of forgetfulness ; the difference between a Wellington with Mr. Moriarty and a Wellington without Mr. Moriarty was not noticed, and the dreadful sequel is a charge by the irate magnate that The Post lacks "common decency." However, before The Post applies itself to the task of framing a suitable apology to the incensed secretary, it must discuss a matter which is of more importance to the public, though, perhaps, of less concern to the irate Mr. Moriarty. This is the reported persecution of a member of the Furniture Union by other members, who have been encouraged by the secretary in their attitude, according to the official's statements. Whatever Mr. Moriarty may have done or said in the past, there is no possibility of mistaking the tone of his letter in to-day's Post. It is practically approval of the tactics already pursued and an incitement to the men to continue the victimisation of a cabinet-maker who dared to accept work on the wharf during the strike, when he was unable to find an engagement at his trade. First of all, the impetuous secretary brushes aside as a negligible trifle the statement made by the union's president, Mr. Kennedy, last week. This officer was questioned before the man's complaint was published, and the two versions appeared together. If the union had decided to buy strike "solidarity" at the price of £3 a week (" to prevent any member from going to work on the wharves "), why did not Mr. Kennedy mention this bonus scheme? The member concerned says that he knew nothing about the offer.' All that he knew definitely was that he was out of work, and he tried to find a suitable billet in city factories before he went to the waterside. "We do believe," says Mr. Moriarty, "that it is an unpardonable offence for any man to take on the work of another who has been forced out of work." Who "forced" the Wellington watersiders out of work? Who "forced" them to have their "stop-work" meeting? Who "forced" them to flout a good agreement? It ie very well known now that the strikers deliberately chose the "sbop-work" method, and thus treated their agreement with contempt. Is that the sort of strike for which the Furniture Union is prepared to persecute one of its members? Mr. Moriarty, with a perversity which suggests that he fe more or less consciously flattering Mr. P. Hickey by imitating his inventiveness, has made another glaring misuse of the ■word "force," thus:— "lf you are sueeaseful in getting the employers to force us out on strike." This is grim humour, surely not altogether unconscious. The unionists \n this case are aspiring to be the "master claee." They have, in effect, dared tho employers to take on the black-listed member whom the autocratic secretary addressed, as an "ex-cabinetmaker." The persecutors, not the employers, have made the challenge, and Mr. Moriarty has thrown out sundry sinister hinU of boycott. But, of course, that is not "force." It h only the punishment of the "unpardonable offence" of a unionist against an intolerable conspiracy of Syndicalism. This word does not lose "nastiness," but acquires more, by the methods of the Furniture Union'c members. The Bed Federals are straight-out Syndicalists; the Furniture Union has, on the facts published, laid itself open to the allegation of being an aider and abettor of Syndicalism by dovioufc waye. Is the Furniture Workers' Trust or Combine strong enough already to dictate to tho employers? Who are the actual employers and who are the employed ? That rrueation arises from Mr. Moriarty's letter.