RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL LABORERS' UNION.

Evening Star, Issue 15481, 1 May 1914, Page 10

RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL LABORERS' UNION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Is the following resolution of the above union sarcasm, or is it ignorance of the true position of affairs: That this meeting view with alarm the formation of the local political organisation, which, in our opinion, is destined to further divide the forces of Labor, and prevent united action at the forthcoming election, and would therefore urge all Labor organisations to stand by the Social Democratic party, it being the only National Political Labor party qualified to speak on behalf of Labor. The meeting '"viewed with alarm the formation of the local political organisation." Really! Picture the hair of these alarmed members standing on end or turning grey! This new organisation has been in existence some six weeks, but it is only now, since Mr Parry arrived in Dunedin, and in all probability has had a confab with some of the leading lights- of this union, that the "alarm." was created. Mr Parry must do something for his bread aoid butter, and he has evidently chosen the officials of this union as " fertile soil" on which to work, with the above result. The formation of the local union "is destined to further divide the forces of Labor, and prevent united action at the forthcoming General Election." What is the real position at present? All the local unions (including the laborers') were asked, and earnestly entreated, to join the Social Democratic party. All these unions (marl-, you, including the laborers'), with the exception of the Carters' Union, refused to join. Yet we have the Laborers' Union talking about getting "united action " at the next election. The unions have point-blank refused to have anything to do with the Social Democrats. It is very plain, then, to anyone with any common sense that the united action which the Laborers' Union speak about could not come from this quarter. The local organisation came into existence to try to get this "united action," but so long as we have people in the Labor.ranks who will not look matters squarely in the face so long will Labor be without this "united action."

Then the Laborers' Union " urge all Labor organisations to stand by the Social Democratic party." Wonderful! Has this union done so itself? Is it not a, fact that a ballot of the members "turned down" the Social Democrats, and refused to have anything to do with them ! Yet they come along and "urge" other unions to do something which they have refused to do themselves ! Is this not a little presumptive.,, and docs it reflect credit on these who engineered it? "WouJd it not have been more honorable for the comparatively few members who were present whe,; the above resolution was carried to have refrained from passing it in face of the fact that the union, as a whole, had decided in a contrary direction? It seems to be taking a mean advantag of the members who were not- present,. Indeed, from the nature of their calling and from the fact that a large proportion of the members get employment out of the City, it is impossible to get a representative meeting. The more honorable course would have been to take a ballot as to whether the union should join the local organisation or not-. The ballot was taken in the case of joining the Social Democrats. Then why not in this case, too? But perhaps this course did not suit some of the prominent members in face of the result of tHe previous ballot. I shall be very much mistaken if any union will he fooled with this "decoy" resolution. There is too much chaff about it, and not enough wheat.' Try another bait.' I also se'e that the Waterside Workers' Union have been -" trot at." and another decoy resolution encineered. We may expect a* few of these while Mr Parry i« with us, but they will not do much harm. —I am, etc., Jonathan. May 1.