WORK OR A FIGHT?

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 115, 12 November 1930, Page 10

WORK OR A FIGHT?

It is high time the wdrkers of New Zealand looked to see where they are going, or being led, in their attitude to the Unemployment Act. We publish to-day extracts from a circular distributed by the Communist Party of New Zealand, which openly urges obstruction of the Act and defiance of the Government in its administration. It shows where this insignificant little group of troublemakers stands. The Communists want trouble. Anything which relieves distress, lessens hardship, or allays discontent is unwelcome. The Communist creed is that the whole state of society is rotten and that there must be widespread upheaval and destruction. The Communists want to see a heap of ruins before they think of building. But we give the great majority of workers credit for far greater intelligence. They are not likely to follow such a miserymaking lead. Yet there, is a danger that, if the sensible "workers are not alert, they will be unintentionally aiding and abetting this destructive action. Threats of withdrawal of co-operation have been made by the Alliance of Labour, and the Alliance has admitted that its affiliated organisations have taken no part in the nomination of the workers' representatives. We do not suggest that the Alliance is 'guided by the Communist Party, but the Alliance and its supporters are certainly acting as the Communists would wish them to act. The question at issue is not of such grave moment as to justify withdrawal of co-operation and defiance of the law. Workers' organisations and other bodies which have been given representation on the Board have been asked to submit nominations. From those nominated the Government will make the appointments. In making the selection the Government will naturally give consideration to the desires of the unions and other nominating bodies; but it is desirable that there should be some discretion in making the choice so that the Board will include the greatest variety of talent and experience. Also it is essential that Board members should be able to work together harmoniously. Their capacity for co-operation will be an important factor. The weight of these considerations has been recognised by all organisations interested in the constitution of the Board except some of the Labour unions. Protests have come only from that quarter. There has been no objection from returned soldiers, employers, or farmers to the method of appointment. Nor was there any marked objection when the legislation was before Parliament. To threaten destruction or demand delay now is unreasonable. It is certainly playing into the hands of the small minority who wish to see the whole scheme fail. Workers who are easily allowing themselves to be led to protest against the Act and hinder its operation would be well advised to consider the probable results if they make the scheme a failure. In Parliament, Labour, with political motives, disparaged, and even condemned, the measure as if it were thrusting something upon the workers. Some of the workers seem to have swallowed what was said there, and to believe that they are the victims of the law. On the contrary, the law has been passed for their benefit, and substantial concessions have been made by other sections of the community to permit of this benefit. Against their own judgment business men, farmers, and employers have accepted the sustenance provisions, hoping that their inclusion' would result in a scheme which would be heartily supported by all. Nor can the workers hope that, if they reject this plan, something better will be offered. Passive resistance, either by neglect to register or refusal to pay the levy, will render the resister liable to penalties, arid will automatically deprive him of any benefit from the scheme. Those who are contemplating such passive resistance should remember this. If they do not register, and refuse to pay, they certainly cannot expect help. And they need expect no public sympathy when help is denied them. Some of those who are protesting and objecting are evidently quite unable to appreciate the public mood, or to understand what is ihe condition of the country. They seem to think that, if the^wreck this scheme,

they can then demand unemployment relief works from the Government and the municipalities, and aid from hospital boards and voluntary organisations. They do not understand that the great drop in wool and dairy produce prices is making it extremely difficult for farmers, big and small, to pay their way. Manufacturers, merchants, shopkeepers, and others are all suffering alike. They are in the mood to object most vigorously to higher taxation, higher rates, or new relief work loans, and they will not respond to appeals for voluntary assistance. To help in solving the unemployment problem they have assented to the plan authorised by the Unemployment Act. If this plan is thrown back inUheir faces with no expression of gratitude only a demand for more concessions —they will be justified in refusing to help further. They will conclude, and with some reason, that the unemployment distress is not so great as it has been represented to be, and that the hardship of the men out of work cannot be so acute when their fellow-unionists can hold up relief measures so as to make rather petty protests about their rights.