A “SHOW-DOWN”

Evening Star, Issue 23915, 19 June 1941, Page 5

A “SHOW-DOWN”

CONSCIENCE AND WAR EMPLOYMENT OF OBJECTORS WHAT ATTITUDE 1 The pronouncement made by Mr R. T. Bailey, Labour Department Officer in Christchurch, regarding the employment of conscientious objectors has attracted considerable attention and drawn much comment. It is stated in Christchurch that, from inquiries, there is every indication of a “ show down ” before long. Not only is there resentment among employers, but employees are also backing up their employers in their attitude by a strong reluctance to work alongside men who refuse any service whatever to their country (states the Christchurch ‘Star-Sun’). The Labour Department Officer has also been taken to task for this pronouncement, in questioning the dismissal of conscientious objectors, that “ after all, freedom of thought and action is what we are fighting for, and the Union Jack symbolises these aims.’' One business executive said: “Mr Bailey had a perfect right to state his case for the employees, but it was not in his province to take up the cudgels on behalf of conscientious objectors.” This man said that he wondered what attitude Mr Bailey would take up with the Wellington City Council, which intended to dismiss men who refused to render service to their country. FEELINGS OF MEN OVERSEAS. “ t have not appealed for any of my staff, and I do not intend to,” he added. “I am carrying on as best I can, but I will certainly not supplement my staff with conscientious objectors. “ Imagine the feelings of the men overseas when they return to find that some employers have had conscientious objectors in their place while they have been fighting overseas. “ Another thing—it is not fair to ask any man, especially a man with a son or brother overseas, to work alongside a conscientious objector.” “ I don’t know whether I would sack a conscientious objector, but 1 would certainly despise him,” said another employer, “ Personally,” he added,

“ I think most Conscientious objectors are only studying their own convenience. They , are dodgers. That’s what I think.” To a suggestion' that if conscientious objectors were allowed to remain in their present work they should draw only 7s a day, and that the firm should pay the remainder of their salary into the patriotic funds’, this man said he could not pass an opinion on that. That was a problem for the Government. They should be collected up and put into some productive work at soldiers’ rates of pay.

“ I wouldn’t have them about me,” said another employer. “ You can say to any man, ‘ I don’t want your services any longer.’ Of course, you have to choose the right moment to do it.” “ Why should we employ men who are not prepared to fight for the liberties and amenities they enjoy in New Zealand?” said another large employer of labour. “ They are just sheltering behind a magnanimous British Empire.” Similar views were expressed by other employers. The manager of one large concern said that he had one man who came .to him for a position. When asked whether he was liable for military service the applicant replied that he was a conscientious objector. “ I told him it was no good his coming to me,” said the manager. “He was quite open about it, and when he heard what I had to say he just said 1 Thanks ’ and walked out the door.”

“ What is Mr Bailey going to do if the Christchurch City Council decides to do the same as the Wellington City Council has done? I would like to hear his reply to that,” was another comment. WO USE FOR THEM " “ I have no use for them whatsoever, not even as ornaments about the place,” was the remark of one big New Zealand business head when indicating in Wellington his feelings towards those who would not serve to protect their country and people. “ Tf there are any of them about here —and we have very many employees — they will be shifted pretty quickly. If I find anyone who even looks like a conscientious objector amongst onr employees he will got his walking shoes.” This business mamregarded it as absolutely absurd that such a position should arise that an employoe > should go along to his employer at a time like this, when the Empire was fighting for its very existence, and state that on conscientious grounds he could not do anything to assist the war effort. “ I know what I woudl do with him,” ho added emphatically. •