ROSSENDALE VALLEY BOYCOTT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23688, 21 December 1938, Page 14

ROSSENDALE VALLEY BOYCOTT

HIGH COMMISSIONER REAPPROACHED REQUEST FOR TARIFF REMOVALS MR W. J. JORDAN’S SHARP REPLY (From Our Own Correspondent) (By Air Mail) LONDON. Nov. 17. Reduction of the tariff, and abolition of the 3s minimum duty placed by the New Zealand Government on footwear from the Rossendale Valley, has been sought by the Rossendale Union of Boot. Shoe and Slipper Operatives in a letter to the High Commissioner for New Zealand, Mr W. J. Jordan. “ now that your elections are over and have been so successful.” Recently, after the executive of this union had refused to allow Mr Jordan to address union members, a ballot was taken and it was decided to boycott the sale of New Zealand produce in the Valley (although the Quantity of Dominion produce sold there is almost negligible). Mr Jordan, replying to the letter, said that he has had no indication from the New Zealand Government of its intention to amend its Customs tariffs. He was afraid that the “ high handed ” action of the union in taking a ballot without meeting his reauest to address members has not helped the position. He suggested that the decision to boycott might be reconsidered. UNION’S REQUENT.

The letter from the Rossendale Union read:

“ Now that your elections are over and you have been so successful, for which lam well pleased,-1 wonder if there is any hope of a reduction in the tariff on cheap shoes and slippers, and the abolition of the 3s minimum. Is there? “ I could understand your Government’s action if our goods were produced under sweated conditions, but we are amongst the best paid workers in England, and our hours have been 46 per week for 20 years, whilst others have been 48 hours and over in England, and I think our juvenile rates are absolutely the highest in the country. “We do not believe in juveniles working, but in England it is the custom yet, and it is in England that we must compare our rates and conditions. I am pleased that there has been so much progress made in New Zealand under the Labour Government, but it does seem that the workers of New Zealand are at a disadvantage with having to pay such an exorbitant price for our slippers on what you might describe as shoes for indoor wear, particularly considering they are produced under good conditions and the operatives are amongst the highest paid in this country.” MR JORDAN’S REPLY

In reply, Mr Jordan said: “You express your pleasure at the result of the New Zealand election. which result is an endorsement of the policy which your union has decided to boycott. It is unlikely that any consideration will be given to the amendment of the Customs Act, now that the people of the Dominion have so overwhelmingly endorsed the policy of our Government, and, in any case, after your high-handed action in taking a ballot of your members without meeting my request to address members on the subject, I, in turn, wonder whether you are satisfied with the action you have taken. “In my objection to the action—which you evidently prefer—l have refrained from sending to New Zealand, up to the present, a list of proprietary lines and names of employers and the members of your union, as if I did so it would be fair if a retaliatory boycott were declared. But I know New Zealand too well to believe that such action on their part would be considered, especially between British countries.

“ You make quite a point of conditions under which your members must be compared to the conditions in other districts in Britain. If favourable conditions entitle you to consideration, then surely the better conditions in New Zealand entitle the workers of that British Dominion to the kindly consideration of yourselves and members of your union. “ GO BACK OVER THE GROUND ” “As your executive decided on this line of action without an opportunity of hearing the case from the Dominion, the members of your union were allowed to decide to boycott our produce. If your executive wishes to go back over the ground and reverse their action then you will undoubtedly take the necessary steps to do that; that is not our business.

“We are pleased at all times to hear a case fully explained, which principle evidentlv is not encouraged by the executive of your union. “ However, in answer to your wonder whether there is any hope of a reduction of the tariff on cheap shoes and slippers, and the abolition of the 3s minimum, I must state that I have had no indication from my Government of their intention so to amend the Customs tariffs. I am afraid that the action of your union in deciding to boycott our goods has not helped your position very much as your action has made it difficult for your case.”