CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 22, 26 July 1927, Page 12

CORRESPONDENCE

HELP—AND TALK

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—lf a flood of words could have solved the unemployment problem, your correspondent, James Roberts, would have settled it long ago. Unfortunately his long-winded letters are of no more value than a fly's leg to a hungry man. He prates of "logic" yet indicates not the slightest knowledge of what it means.

For example, ho says, in effect, "I am not in favour o£ payment by results, but the workers should get actually what they earn.'"' There is logic (of the horse chestnut order). This leads him to think that a lot o£ specious argument is helping the unemployed. The man who gives anything to the Mayor's Fund supplies more practical aid than James ltoberts would render in a thousand years by his ceaseless talk. The trouble about corresponding with such a correspondent is that he quotes what you say and tacks on whot you did not say. Tims lie quotes me as saying that I gave my bit to the unemployed and said nothing about it. That is incorrect. I never said anything about myself at all in this connection. We are told by him that his alliance has 60,000 members, and not a week passes but they subscribe over a shilling each to help their sick and mained comrades. Does he realise what that means? Over £3000 a week, more than £150,000 a year he says is expended in sick and accident benefits by the alliance members, yet it has no general benefit fund. If this is true it is time the alliance got an organiser. How xmkind he is to his Communist friends to repudiate them as he does. After all his objective and theirs is the same. They vote for him and he ought to be a little more grateful. It is a waste of time to examine all his twisting and turnings and: fancy posturing, so I will deal with his two main contentions: (1) That the men on relief works should give no more work than what they are paid for, as that is in accordance with business practice. (2) That they should receive trade union rates and the conditions of awards and agreements. Stated baldly, it is very specious that men should simply give equivalent value to what they receive. Only on proper examination it is seen to be a fraudulent social idea; It is not true that business people never give more value than they get in return. In time of crisis many sell at a sacrifice. Instead of standing out for full value they take what they can get. Numerous business people and. citizens have given to tha Mayor's Fund without receiving any direct return. Men placed on the relief works are employed to do their best in the time they are paid for. It is impossible for them to calculate when they have given exact value for what they get. The advice of James Roberts is, therefore, but an incitement to them to shirk full work and loaf on the job.

I have reason to believe that tlie general body of men are treating that advice with (he contempt it~ deserves and are doing their best for tho community which has shown by its response to the Mayor's appeal its fair consideration for them. I understand James Roberts claims to be a Socialist. What a miserable unsocial gospel he is teaching. The work is not for private profit but for the community, yet this man advises the workers, whom the citizens are helping, not to play the game but to follow the course of personal and class selfishness; not to give more than they get • whilst others are giving freely and expecting nothing in return I would suggest that Mr. C. H. Chapman give James Roberts a lecture on the subject of social conscience, which he referred to at the meeting called by the Mayor. On the second count, is it not absurd to claim full trade union rates for men on relief works when hundreds of farmers, shopkeepers, and others are not earning as much as these rates come to? As Co conditions, is it suggested that preference to unionists shall apply to these works—what are the conditions referred to? Of course, Mr. Roberts, being entirely class conscious, holds that unemployment is produced by the rich and these should pay lor the relief. He has no help to Rive except in demanding that others pay. He scouts relief as patchwork, but lias no practical idea to take its place.—l am, etc., PRACTICAL HELP.' 2oth July.

(To the Editor.)

(sir.--.Lhe Prime Minister, in replying to Mr. H. L. Tapley, M.P., with reference to the advice given by J. Roberts, secretary of the Alliance of Labour, that the men on relief works should not give work beyond what they aro paid for, really let Mr. Roberts off very lightly. The actual facts are that when the deputation waited on the Prime Minister on the 14th inst., Mr. Roberts, in speaking, said: "The men on the job had stated they would not give more than 9s worth of work per day where they were in receipt of that wape, and he heartily concurred in that view." Now that clearly suggests that the idea of limiting the amount of work they would give came from the men on the job, yet what do we find? In a page of the "Jfew Zealand Worker," published on the 13th, for which the .same J. Roberts is responsible, the advice is given to limit the work done, and it is stated definitely: "We make no apology whatever to any public body or to the Government for giving this advice." Even worse is the suggestion conveyed m another part of the article in these words: "The capable worker is dissatisfied with the rates offered, and while he is in this dissatisfied condition, we doubt very much whether he will give service even | equal to the 9s a day received." What can be thought of the meanness o£ the action of placing the onus on the men on the job" when the advice and suggestion had previously been put forward in the Alliance of Labour page of the .New Zealand Alliance"? The responsibility rests on the Alliance of Labour. It either endorses this action and teaching of its officer or should repudiate zt. What is the value of the Labour Party's profession that it does not support the "go slow" policy whilst a leading member can act in such a manner without any objection coming from the party. —We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. 2jth July. ■ |

(To the Editor.) ■ Sil'C\" A little nonsense now and then is relished by. the wisest men," but a •little learning is a dangerous thing, and bane Labour" has not yet learned the meaning of Labour lieutenant. If your correspondent will exercise a little of his boasted freedom to reason and sanity, he will discover that Capitalism organises the working class for the purpose of production on somewhat military lines. There are privates (ordinary working men); the sergeants. (the foremen): the lieutenants (the departmental heads). The general staff of Capitalism, the financiers, the trust magnates, and the shipping lords have found it necessary, in order that industry may run smoothly in is"'i I"ter(;sts. to organise a department which has m fact for its purpose the disciplining and control of labour organisations. At the head of this department are a number of Labour leaders, who, like their military replica, the lieutenants, are in charge of the organising and disciplining of a small division of the rank and file of the army of production. These Labour lieutenants, whose sole concern is the carrying on of production without disturbance, profess to lead the working class for its own benefit, vhile really they are under the discipline, and frequently in the pay, of the captaius of industry. One of the most praised stars that a Labour lieutenant can receive from those in command is the epithet "sune." Can it be wondered that those whose ears.ring with the praise of the masters, the enemies of the working class, that any criticism of those masters seem to be nothing but discordant noises? I did not expect "Sane Labour" to suggest a policy for the organising of the-unemployed; he is too busy attempting to cure the chronic disease of Capitalism-unemployment, by applying charity and a longer working week to permit the workers, on relief works, to earn less, than a bare subsistence wage. If it were not casting an aspersion on the intelligence of the parrots, I wight suggest that "Sane Labour" learned his ciy of "towards Moscow" from the irees where these birds keep company with the apes. But as it seems that ''Sane Labour" has no suggestion of any kind that may bo used by the unemployed, or the working class as a whole, to improve the conditions which are forced upon, them by disintegrating Capitalism, and only reiterates worn-out phrases, I do not intend

to waste the time of your readers and the space of your paper by bandying words with the nonsensical jester.—l am, etc., F. G. WALSH. 25th July.

F. E. Freeman asks what does Mr. Roberts advise unemployed workers to do when offered work at pay below trade union rates. "If he advises them to refuse such work, as I expect he does, what alternative will he suggest?" The correspondent asks if Mr. Roberts will help by supporting the suggestions made by the unemployed as to the means which should be employed to enable them to secure trade union rates.