CLERICAL WORKERS

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 129, 2 June 1936, Page 8

CLERICAL WORKERS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—To one who is not a clerk but was privileged as a visitor to attend the Clerical Workers' Union meeting last Thursday, the much-argued position in this matter is clear. Some Wellington clerks approached the District Alliance of Labour for organisational assistance in forming a trade union. Who is more competent or experienced in aiding wage-earners than this body? Although they may have no experience in this particular occuI pation, men like Mr. P. M. Butler and Mr. F. P. Walsh have a life-long experience in general union organisation, and are surely the best persons to save clerks from possible victimisation in the early, weak stages of the union. Let there be no fear of these men indefinitely holding office in this union. They are much too busy. Nor is there anything to fear from Trades Hall. Shall I say that the bulk of clerks have at least one member of their family who is attached to Trades Hall through a trade union? Only good can come from association with fellow wage-earners. Would it not be nearer the truth to say that clerks (and other employees) have more to fear from the Employers' Federation? This is specially true when these gentlemen are suddenly concerned with the trade union organisation of their employees. When the Greeks bring gifts. . . . To ensure effective bargaining power and real solidarity clerks clearly require an all-embracing organisation of their fellow-employees, who are so peculiarly interchangeable. It would be ridiculous to assert that clerks in a mercantile house could not rapidly adapt themselves to work in an oil company. This adaptability of clerks makes a single union a matter of urgency. Imagine the situation if every type of clerking had its own little (or large) union! The clerks would more than ever be at the mercy of the unscrupulous employer whose acts would force other and competing employers also to pay at the lowest level and similarly worsen conditions.

The need for a single, united, powerful employees' organisation is so clearly apparent to the Employers' Federation that, one is led to believe, endless efforts are being made by this body, directly and indirectly, to convince some clerical workers that "it is for their own good to organise separately." One has faith in the good sense of Wellington clerks to see the motives actuating this unique interest in unionism—but a unionism that looks dangerously like the kind where the managing director is president and the firm pays the salary of the organising secretary. This so-called trade unionism results in loss of that vital independence which, in conjunction with the strength of fellow-workers, alone can improve the poor conditions of the bulk of clerks.

The danger lies in the registration of even one single trade union of clerical workers other than that already rceistercd. Once commenced

this process will continue, taking advantage of the unrepealed legislation of past Governments to weaken the possible united strength of employees in this important occupation. The effects on the whole trade union movement and allied bodies such as the Public Service Association, Railwaymen's and Teachers' Associations, would be incalculable. We can only hope that the Minister for Labour will not for a moment countenance these applications for registration from" sectional interests, and that the various clerical workers will see the value of unity with their kin in other firms rather than with their employer in the same firm. A single Clerical Workers' Union will raise the whole occupation to its correct status in the community.—l am, etc., MAX RISKE.