A UNITY QUARREL

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1937, Page 8

A UNITY QUARREL

(To the Etfitoi-.;

Sir,—While Messrs Walsh, Cook, and Roberts air their personal differences, thus bringing about the opposite effect to what they claim they are striving for, that is, unity of the New Zealand Trade Union movement, the rank and file demand of the workers concerned for this unity is greater than ever. But because of these personal differences, the same workers are being side-tracked from their objective, for we now find two conferences being organised by the divided leadership, each with the ssme alleged objective of national trade union unity.

I personally am not concerned here with whether Mr, F. P. Walsh was or was not a member of the Communist ■Party, or that Mr. Jas. Roberts said such and such about the political Labour Party, or whether Mr. Cook is a "political non-unionist," but along with the great majority of New Zealand industrial workers, I am definitely concerned about the need for trade union unity in New Zealand. Therefore, it appears to me that the New Zealand industrial workers are not faced with the choice of two conferences, but with ensuring that their respective unions are represented at both with the definite objective of bringing about industrial unity and one National Federation of Trade Unions.

Finally, if Messrs Roberts, Cook, and. Walsh are more concerned about the interests of the workers than with their own personal differences which have been so well aired in your columns, then let these gentlemen remember that above personalities, the New Zealand industrial working class comes first, that this so much desired unity can be much better attained in one all-in, united conference of trade unions than in two divided conferences as at present intended.—l am, etc.,

PROLETARIAN.

(T the Editor.)

Sir, —I have read with considerable interest the articles published, by your paper regarding the split in the Alliance of Labour. Here we have two prominent trades union officials voicing their greivances through a Press which they have so openly abused in the past. Not many moons ago these two were bosom friends; now each is trying to tell the public what a- good fellow he is and what an opportunist his opponent is. The pioneers of trades union movement (who got but little monetary gain but of their activities) would turn in their graves could they know of the present struggle between these two for the position that will give them power to dictate to the workers. Given the opportunity in . some European countries, these gentlemen would be dictators in the embryo. Here, fortunately,, they have to remain presidents of trades unions.—l am, etc.,.

A. F.

HANSEN,

[Other letters have been received on this subject; but the two published are fairly representative of the opinions expressed.—Ed.] '