MINING DISPUTE

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 June 1932, Page 8

MINING DISPUTE

NORTHERN conference. [per PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, June 26. Arrangements were finalised during the week-end'-for the holding of a conference in Auckland on Tuesday between the’Waikato and Hikurangi miu ’ ers and the coal owners. The following telegram was received by Mr. W. Davison, Secretary of the Northern Miners’ District Council, from Mr. T. 6. Bishop, Secretary of the New Zealand Coal Mine Owners’ Association:—“lf your Union can give a definite assurance that the Hikurangi branch of the Union will accept, and abide by, any agreement reached at the conference as to the engagement and dismissal of men, the owners will arrange a conference in Auckland on Tuesday; the resumption of work to be postponed until after the conference.” Mr. Bishop’s message was immediate-ly-referred to the Hikurangi Miners’ Union, whose secretary, Mr. C. A. Latham, replied: “My Union will stand by a majority, rule, provided that it is endorsed by the Waikato mine workers.” , • /

On Saturday night, Mr. Davison received the following telegram from Mr Bishop:—“l am informed by Mr. A. MeLagan, Secretary of the Federation of Miners’ Unions, that a conference has been accepted, as proposed in my telegram to you. l am, therefore, arranging for the conference to take place on Tuesday in Auckland.” It was stated by Union officials today that the Glen Afton, Pukemiro, McDonald, Rotowaro, Renown and Hikurangi branches of the Union will be represented at the conference.

THOSE IN NEED. [TO THE EDITOR.] Sir, —In reply to “Plain Facts,” he states that there is no distress among the miners. .Well, I think that he can hardly bo conversant with the state of affairs in and around the State mines. The ' Liverpool mine has worked this year 66 days averaging 2£ days per week, and the last month 3 days in aIL . Now take stoppages -per pay. Medical and accident 5/-, railway fares 4/6, unemployment tax 1/- in the pound, besides powder and tools, and, out of what a man takes home there is not much left for tucker bill, never mind motor cars, dances or pictures. I don’t know who has asked the Co-op. miners to subscribe £2/10/pei- man per month, but it was not the State Miners’ Union, for they have had no reply from them since last Wednesday fortnight. I would also like to point out that tidying up the garden and the street as “Plain Facts” suggests does not pay the bills, and the “Dole Man” is a shade on the better side, than 50 per cent of the men working at the No. 2 Liverpool mine. —I am, Sir, PLAINER FACTS. REPLY TO MR O’BRIEN.

[TO THE EDITOR.] Sil', —In view of the fact that a Coal Conference is to be held within a fortnight or so, there is reason to believe that the questions will be settled in a manner satisfactory to all concerned, and I would like to congratulate the. Grey “Star” for its excellent and fearless articles in connection with the dispute. I have followed mining affairs very closely, and I have found that while Labour M’s.P. have been strangely silent, the “Star” has always had the temerity to ventilate mining grievances. The people on the West Coast have a heritage in the form of vast coal deposits which should be jealously’ guarded, and the “Star” has not been behind in this respect. In fact, I believe the “Star” has done much to prevent the mining districts from being torn with internecine strife during the recent trouble. Now; Sir, regarding the Coal Conference —it should be possible for both parties in ; the industry to get together, examine the working conditions on their merits, and get rid of any conditions of working (if any) which are found to increase unnecessarily or unjustifiably the cost of mining. In fact, I think the Coal Owners should give us some data on the costs of coal distribution. Information as regards prices and profits which ontain after the coal has left the mine mouth will be'of direct interest to all those concerned in actual, mining operations, for not. only does the ultimate selling price reflect on the coal consumption, but it also determines the economic limit to which the mines can be worked. Such a revision of conditions would be of very great advantage at the present time to the industry, arid tb those employed in it. It promises better results than anything else, and would forestall the present demand for a further reduction in wages. The benefit would reflect on both the industry and on the consumer and might be expected to influence in some degree, our present acute state of unemployment. I think about it in this way. Lord Beaconsfield used to say that. England was not governed,by Kings and statesmen, but by public opinion, and no class, no trade, no industry can live long and successfully against public opinion. The mere fact that the Coal Owners refused a conference in the past few weeks has placed public opinion on the miners’ side. The average miner believes in justice and fan- play all eund, and that will be our salvation. Now, Sir, I would like to have something to say in regard to Mr O’Brien’s letter. After reading Mi’ O’Brien’s letter carefully, I can only reach one conclusion, and that is: “That there seems to be some form of intellectual anaemia endemic in Labour circles.” Mr O’Brien, in his remarks has practically told the miners that they will have to accept all conditions such as working eight hours per day in water and so on. He then advises the miners to re-organise with a view to seizing the first opportunity of winning conditions back again. This seems to me to be rather cold comfort for the men in view of the fact that the present conditions took years of fighting to get. Mr O’Brien has apparently slipped into an inelastic way of thinking there is only one line of progress, that evolution can only occur in one direction. Mr O’Brien has evidently found that the discovery of the contrary has come as a distinct menta’ jar; all of which is very discomposing. Mr O’Brien has referred to the grim struggle of 1913, and he refers to letters written under various pen names, the text of which was accusing the I miners’ leaders of “feathering their own nests.” I can well remember the time, and Mr O’Brien will find that the very men who attempted to break up ths miners’ organisation in 1913, are standing shoulder to shoulder with him (Mr O’Brien) in the so-called coop. movement to-day. In regard to “feathering their own nests,” I have very vivid recollections of one man having to seek police protection because lie dared to suggest that such was taking place. One nest was not

only feathered, but was covered with fine fluffy down. Everyone will remember the incident, because shortly after one prominent leader was found guilty of misappropriating some thousands of pounds belonging to the miners’ organisation. That man to-day, has a very finely feathered nest. Of course, all this did not take place until some after 1913. Mr O’Brien talks about the conditions wop during the last thirty years of agitatipn, negotiation and sacrifice. I have yet to find out where Mr O’Brien made any great sacrifice in the winning of the miners’ conditions. In 1913 he was not a member of the Miners’ Union, and during the 1913 strike he worked the whole time in a comfortable position at the State mines. In regard to co-op. miners losing their lease in the event of their ceasing work to assist in this struggle, he is afraid that “Common Miner” and his friends would at once jump into the c-op. miners’ positions. In regards to jumping, there is a lease on the Rewanui incline, that appears to have been jumped quite recently by some of our “Labour stalwarts.” In fact, Mr T. E. Y. Seddon raised the question in the House of Representatives, and. our Labour men were strangely silent on the matter. There is no chance for “Common Miner,” when some of our so-called Labour men are standing by, thinking that the day of the miners’ greatness is over, that we are slowly crumbling to .pieces, undermined by the waves of energy emanating from those who are hungrily waiting for the spoils that will follow our collapse. Mr O’Brien seems to be hurt because has has been criticised. He may criticise anyone, but it is absolutely below the belt to criticise Mr O’Brien. In Hansard, dated April 29, to May 5, 1932, Page 506, one will see an interjection by Mr O’Brien, regarding stifling criticism of the Government. In fact, all the criticism levelled at Mr O’Brien brings to my mind what Kipling said in regard to the War: —

This was none of the good Lord’s pleasure, The spirit He breathed in man is free, What comes after is measure for measure, And not a God that afflicteth thee.

As is the sowing, so the reaping; It is so, and ever more shall be; Thou art delivered to thy own keep ing, Only thyself hath afflicted thee.

When the fight against the tribute parties was on, a number of the co-op. men were gravely concerned and they were continually sending in funds to fight the tribute, they were prepared to stand back in the dark and stab at what they thought was going to affect their trade. But when the Miners’ Union wanted their assistance in the present trouble, they were “tried by fire and found wanting.” Mr O’Brien and all his co-op. supporters should have reason to be proud of what. they are handing down to posterity' as far as mining history is concerned. Let us hope that all union men will always remember “The black May and June of 1932.” Reverting back to the “Feathering of Nests,” everyone about the mines will remember a fund that was raised during the war to assist defaulters. Of course, the whole thing was illegal, and there have been ominous rumblings for some time as to what has become of the remainder of the money. I should not be surprised if the matter is not thrashed out shortly. I have before me a copy of a confidential report submitted to the Prime Minister,. Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes, last year. The report was compiled by Messrs J. A. C. Bayne, F. W. J. Belton and W. Donovan. In it the “death knell” of co-op. mining is sounded and I will quote an extract: “Co-operative mining has been widely advocated as a means of reducing mining costs, and it is probable that an effort will be made to work more mines under this system. But co-operative mining is neither the best solution nor a. permanent solution of the present difficulty. Considerably better results could be obtained between the coal companies and the miners, based on a frank recognition of the facts of the industry by both sides.” Now, Sir, after this, surely the co-op. miners should realise that our fight is their fight. However, in the meantime, suffice it is to know, “that by their deeds ye shall know them.” —Yours etc., “SEVEN MILE MINER.”

P.S. —Regarding Mr O’Brien’s re marks, regarding Mr Webb, I will re ply later on, when I have arranged my data. —“S.M.M.”