A QUESTION OF RIGHTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17396, 6 February 1917, Page 6

A QUESTION OF RIGHTS.

TO THE EDITOR. Si,-, I notice that, in commenting on my remarks relative to the waterside workers' dispute, you express surprise at the views expressed by me. Naturally, one can hardly expect an appeal to reason to be viewed in any but a hostile spirit in these days when force is the ruling passion. I am not surprised at your hostility to mv views, however, in view of the fact that the newspaper proprietors took the initiative in citing the typographical Association before the Council of Conciliation recently. In that case, it is only fair to state, the typographical operators are registered under the Arbitration Act of their own free will, and have, therefore, not the same grounds for complaint that the waterside workers have. The latter were forced under it by the reprehensible use of "free labour —farmers, farm labourers, clerks, artisans business men, and others, organised for the definite purpose of defeating legitimate trade unionists. These individuals, in many cases the victims of misfortune, and not free agents, being subject to tho economic screw, were used in the making of "Arbitration rules and agreements to bind the legitimate waterside worker for two years whilst, they themselves received special treatment'for the short period of their sojourn at the waterfront as guests of the shipping companies. In spite of your argument to the contrary, there is no analogy between the position of a bona fide trade union, registered under the Industrial Conciliation Act, of its own free -will, citing the employers before the Court, and tho action of the employers to which 1 have taken exception. A worker cannot compel any employer to provide him with employment, and the only corresponding situation which ' the workers could create would be if the trade unions had tho power to cite fclr* employers before a competent tribunal to have tho price of the manufactured article, or the charges for services rendered, as tho case may be, made thi> subject of judicial action. TJnfortun* ately for the community, we are denied the'power at prcseut; I trust it wi'l not be for very long. You are guilty of a serious misstatement, of the facts when you state, in reference to the waterside workers' strike of'lol3, " Thev cho.se the Federation of Labour as their guide, philosopher and friend, and the federation landed them in disaster." The waterside workers were not affiliated to tho Federation of Labour in 1913, they are not now, and the Federation of Labour had nothing whatever to do with tho creation of the trouble, or calling the waterside workers out on strike. It is just as well to be accurate in such important matters. The constitution of the Federation of Labour absolutely forbade the calling of a strike until all means of conciliation had been exhausted, and the dispute handled by a committee of men who were not immediately concerned in the dispute. If you would support an agitation for the nationalisation of the shipping and transport services with a view of putting an end to tho unmerciful exploitation of tho travelling public, and community in general, you would be assisting to prevent industrial chaos, and, incidentally, prevent the further exploitation of tho waterside workers of tho Dominion, and thus ensure a lasting benefit to New Zealand.—l am, <tC ' HIRAM HUNTER.