UNION SECRETARIES.

Evening Star, Issue 19582, 14 June 1927, Page 2

UNION SECRETARIES.

TO TUB EUITOB. Sir, —Grant space i'or a few sentences on tho question of amalgamation. It is not my intention to seek to incur or to incite the enmity of the secretaries who have written to the Press from time to time; neither do 1. desire to encroach upon their several territories. Thesd men have their own axe to grind, and right well do they whet the edge'of it so that they mak hack and chop down the industrial movement or those organisations of it of which they are the paid officials. But as a member of an organisation 1 would like to know what beneficial purpose is served by a paper controversy as between these secretaries. If these men are authorised by their several bodies to enter a contest of wrangling in the industrial arena, then, 1 maintain, it is a had omen for Labor in another sphere. Why, on the other hand, do not the unions authorise their secretaries to meet in council for a free and a frank discussion of the pros and cons of the, problem, and endeavor to clear the stones out of the way, and cut off the dangerous corners, and construct a. highway for tho wayfaring man—a laborer—that even tho foolish ones may not err therein? But it appears to me ns if these contentious controversies arc for the purpose of making it more difficult and dangerous for tho working man to walk therein, and hence he is liable to stumble and to fall ont by the way. It would bo well and wise for us sometimes to think of our weak members instead of always catering for the strong pnes in the industrial movement.

Then, why this persistent clashing and clamoring between the Trades and Labor Council and tho Alliance of Labor? Why he content to remain petty and parochial and pneumonic? Tho noble and worthy ideal of industrial unity is something worth while striving for, and should be fostered and encouraged. This is the great movement in all the fields ot human thought and activity, and it should be carried into effect in the field of industrialism, I feel confident that when industrialism is united in this dominion the day will dawn for a larger and a fuller and a freer life for the emoloymg class.—l am, etc., 1). Nicon. June ]■!.

TO THE EDITOR, Sir, —lu your issue of the 11th hist. Mr I l '. E. Jones eulogises the work of tli© central office and the unity and economy derived from the centra) office scheme. The fact that a number of unions hold their meetings at the one office, employ the same secretary and the same organiser, does not make unity. One union does not know and does not want to know the business of the other union, because they happen to hold their meetings m the same place. The central office scheme may be economy, but there is no unity. A small union with a membership of less than 10U, unless the contributions were a good deal more than the average, could not afford to pay a secretary, rent of office, and office expenses. Thus the central office suits the small unions, but a union with a membership of SUU or over, when you consider the organising as well as office work, can got a better service and a secretary cheaper than the contra! office rates. 1 believe the general laborers were paying over £lO a week to the central office j now they have their own secretary, who devotes his whole time to the work and to organising the union, at considerably less than £lO a week. This proves that a central office is a benefit only to small-craft unions. Mr Jones wants to know the salary of Mr Herbert and how he runs his self-ap-pointed central office. Mr Herbert took over the secretaryship of the Drivers’ Union when that union was jn debt, with, a membership of about 150. Now the drivers have a membership of over 500, with branches right throughout Otago, are well organised, and on a sound footing. The Storemen’s and the Confectioners’ Unions were nonexistent until Mr Herbert organised these workers. I can well imagine what the wages of these workers would be to-day if it wore not for the efforts of Mr Herbert. There is a vast difference between a secretary who lives on the back of his fellow-workers and one who earns his salary. If Mr Herbert is getting, in Mr Jones’s opinion, a high salary, I can assure Mr Jones that he earns it, and through his energy and untiring efforts ho has benefited hundreds of his fellow-work-ers, and the workers who recognise the service he has rendered show their > appreciation in payment for his services. — I am, etc., Cabteb. June 14.