THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18764, 18 January 1923, Page 8

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln ycur issue of Monday you refer to two " interesting " manifestos that have been circulated among the trades unions relating to the vacancy on the Arbitration Court in connection with the position of workers' representative. There are several candidates for the position, and, naturally, competition among: them is keen. Your report seems to indicate that the present holder of the position (Mr M. .T. Ecardon) thinks the workers should agree to give him another term, even although he declares that wages must come down. Mr Reardon is honest when he pructically admits that he is powerless to prevent wage reductions. T-ose who really understand the position know that reductions —and possibly during this year much larger reductions than last year—are sure to come. Why? Simply because (1) the Arbitration Court, like Parliament, is part of the machinery of the capitalist system: and (2) tho workers are insufficiently organised to prevent the inroads that are being made into their wages. You say that the Alliance of Labour has issued a manifesto advocating the replac*. ment of Mr Renrdnn by Mr Hiram Hunter. Now, the Alliance of Labour—a body that ia useless, because it does not work on the principle that, "an injury to one section of labour is an injury to all, and should be resanted by all other sections'"—is led by such men as Mr Roberts, one of tho well-paid officials. Quite recently, when the Arbitration Court made a pronouncement that watersiders should not pay more than £1 per year as contributions to their union, Mr Roberts created a great stir by declaring that the watersiders were done with the Arbitration Court for r!1 time. ]n the manifesto issued by him at that time ho was very wroth because, as he declared, the unions could not carry on unless tho members were made to pay mor.j than £1 per year each. Why? Is it possible that he and other officials would not be able to draw such large salaries and so much travelling expenses as they have become accustomed to? Or is it unfair for me to suggest such a motive against so-called Labour leaders who are supposed to be "above reproach." Is it possible that Mr Roberts and his colleagues are now satisfied to keep the watereiders under the Arbitration Court, seeing that, since their manifesto containing the reference to the .£1 per year subscriptions, the court lias quietly reconsidered its decision in favour of an annual minimum subscription of £2 per year. In conclusion, let mo urge the workers to vote against tho appointment cf any official of theirs to tho Arbitration Court, and by so doing show that they realise the futility to the workers of all Arbitration Court proceedings.—l am,etc., G. S. Thomson. January IG.