POLICY OF BOYCOTT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15937, 3 December 1913, Page 6

POLICY OF BOYCOTT.

IRON TRADES FEDERATION.

Pr«»i Association—By Telegraph—Copyright SYDNEY, December 2. (Received Dec. 2, at 10.40 p.m.) Tho Iron Trades Federation has decided to decline to touch boats running to and from New Zealand. This applies to all tho affiliated unions, such as the blacksmiths, ironworkers, and engineers.

WHARF LABOURERS' DECISION.

NEW ZEALAND CARGO BOYCOTTED.

Pieai Association— By Telegraph—Copyright.

SYDNEY, December 2. (Received Doe. 2, at 10.40 p.m.) At a mass meeting of .wharf labourers, Mr Hughes presiding, it was decided by a majority of 10 to 1 to continue to boycott cargo to and from New Zealand. The "New Zealand Labour delegates approved of this resolution.

Other cargo will bo worked, which means that the Union Company's and the Hud-dart-Parker Company's coastal boats will not be boycotted.

This decision embodies the policy framed by the big unionists' conference at to-day's meeting.

NEWCASTLE MINERS.

NO INDICATION OF A STRIKE.

Pr»«! Aaiociation—By Tolegiaph—Copyright. SYDNEY, Docember 2.

(Received Deo. 2, at 10.40 p.m.) It was rumoured at Newcastle to-day that if the Union Company's boats continued to coal there tho miners wouid strike, but as far as is ascertainable ihe miners at present do not intend to participate in the dispute.

ARBITRATION URGED.

FEELING OF SYDNEY UNIONISTS.

Praia Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. SYDNEY, December 2.

(Received Dec. 3, at 1.10 a.m.) Mr Hughes, on behalf of the conference of unionists, is issuing a reply to the Employers' Defence Committee, recommending that the wholo affair be referred to Sir Joshua Williams or some other acceptable arbitrator, his decision to bs final on all points, including tho employment of labour.

THE OTAGO LABOURERS' UNION AND THE STRIKE. to tme editor.

Sir,—ln your issue of 'Thursday 1 find a " statement " prepared for and issued by the Otago General Labqurers' Union. It is tiablo to mislead any 61 your readers who accept it as a correct narrative of certain [acts or a lair criticism of the United Labour Party's attitude to the strike. It is plainly evident that the gentlemen who compiled the 'statement" either did not know all the facte or has chosen to misrepresent the position. Brielly, tho attitude of the United Labour Party on tho strike was this: The party was opposed to> the extension of the strike, and do'ubb/' opposed to its extension to unions which could not possibly influence tho course of tho strike. The United Labour Party offered to mediate botwecn the parties when relations became strained. Neither the Federation of Labour nor the Wellington Strike Committee would agree to our mediation. An appeal was made to the United Labour Party unions by the Federation .of Labour. In thai appeal they were asked' to strike, and the executive of the United Labour Party was wholly ignored. Ite endorsement of the strike policy 'was not sought. Up to that timo no public pronouncement on the strike was made by the United Labour Party. But surely when the Federation of Labour approached United Labour Party unions and urged them to strike some decisive stop had to be taken. The executive of the United Labour Party then decided to circularise the unions. The circular was issued to unions, and its advice in short was—" Don't strike."

The statement of the local Labourers' Union begins by saying that the union '" sincerely rcgrots that Messrs J. T. Paul and L. M. A. Reardon should take advantage of an apparent ' affliction' that has befallen the wage-earners' cause in, New Zealand by issuing a spurious manifesto," and then proceeds in these terms: "We feel that tho cause of Labour would have been better served by Messrs Paul and Reardon had they first circularised the unions before publishing a document which might possibly create prejudice against tho arrested strike leaders, whose case is sub judice," etc. To show tho value of this criticism I state emphatically that we did not issue a manifesto—spurious or otherwise. But' we did issue a circular to the unions. The circular found it's way into the nre;6. but certainly not through my hands. The newspaper which first published our circular added these words introducing it: "Several prominent members of these unions, who have already received it, considered it advisable that the manifesto should bo made public." The newspaper used the word ''manifesto," but the United Labour Party is not responsible for the word. We issued a circular to unions. .It -was headed: " United Labour Party. Declaration on Present Crisis. To tho Secretary, Union." It was

signed, " On behalf of tho Executive of the United Labour Party," by Mr Reardon and myself. Now what becomes of tho contention that we should have " circu'.araed the unions""? That is just what we did do. Wo did exactly what the Labourers' Union says we should have done. ,

Where this " statement" of the Labourers' Union suggests that, either Mr Roardon or myself is guilty of endorsing an anti-Labour attitude, tie "statement" suggests what is not true. The man behind the. pen which wrote tho "statement" misled tho labourers bad'.y. He overloads his argument as to tho posi;ion of tho United Labour Party: "A pseudo-Labour organisation," "no vitality," ''no virile branches," "no unions of any consequence affiliated," etc. Such statements eound well, but before they are worth anything they must be true. To convince the Otago Labourers' Union that., it has been, misled in endorsing tho contents of its remarkable ''statement," it is only necessary to point out that tho Wellington General Labourers' Union is affiliated to the United Labour Party. Surely that is a union of some " consequence."

I trust tho labourers -will not bo induced o worry about tho treatment wo will eventually receive at the hands of the workers, I will be quite satisfied with the treatment I 'receive at all times from the workers of Dimcdin. But it will be abundantly necessary to place tho full facts before them. Otherwise they may be misled as the general labourers were misled. There are always a few scandalmongers in the unions, and their chief stock-in-trado is vilification. They seek to emphasise their own virtues by condemning what they are pleased to put forth as other men's vices. Our offence consists in trying to minimise the effects of the strike. We advised our unions not to strike. If our advice was wrong, or the following of it prejudicial to the workers, why did the local Labourers' Union not strike? And, to bo logical, why did not the gentleman who condemns tho United Labour Party's attitude to the strike support the calling out of all unions? The local Labourers' Union did not strike because it saw the futility and disaster of such an action. The " apparent ' affliction ' " mentioned in tho "statement" is to many a terrible reality. We tried to minimise the "affliction." Tho actions of the unions Ims been aa endorsement of our advice. Thero are some 346 unions registered in New Zealand, 42 of which struck, and 11 of which havo gono back on the strike. After the call of the Federation of Labour for a general strike, only three additional unions responded. I wish to make it clear that I do not complain of the attitude of the Labourers' Union. The members present at the meeting at which the "statement" was endorsed simply trusted somebody who is clearly unworthy of trust because of his inability to use language which conveys the facts of the situation. I have a very warm comer in my heart for the Otago General labourers' Union since I helped to bring it into existence. I suggest, however, that it is unwise to depart from the British tradition of hearing a man before ho is condemned. And at this juncture it is very dangerous to act without full possession of the facte of the situation.—l am, etc., J. T. Paul

Wellington, December 1,