Labour v. Capital. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2356, 20 April 1899, Page 35

Labour v. Capital. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — This is. the heading your Upper Molyneux correspondent uses in giving an account of a dispute ze working nine hours a day on 'the Earnscleugh No. 1 dredge here at ' Alexandra. -What he states with regard to refusing to work nine hours is correct; but his fine discrimination between labourers' aud dredgemen's work is very difficult to* grasp. As to the hasty aud uncounselled action in knocking 'off, what could wo do, as a complete sur- - priso was sprung upon us-, and no- time or . notice given? When we hesitated about starting after, lunch we were told by the manager ! ' if we considered ourselves aggrieved it would be ' better not to start, and as we did consider wa ~ had a grievance y>e took him at his word and ' left the dredge. Your correspondent then goes on to say all sorts of nice things about the dredging - companies, for* v which there is no call, a's - no fault has been found, but I .would 'like to -ask him a question or two : (1) What is labourers' work with regard to dredging? (2) Is eight hours a recognised, day's labour in this district? (3) Did any other dredge about here during alterations or repairs .work the men nine hours or reduce their pay because it ■was labourers' work? (4) He advises the men to form a union (for what purpose I don't know, seeing that he considers it a fair thing to work nine hours), and states we now have interests to protect. > Had dredgeinen no interests till nowj-'ancl if chipping* against Jonger hours of labonr for "' the same pay is not to our interests, I don't thir> a union would do much good. Moreover, the -members of the local press thought fit to let the matter pass without comment, and if your correspondent had allowed it to die a natural death, and not probed the wound, I am of opinion ho would have done wisely. Thanking you in anticipation, — I am, etc., ONE WHO LEFT. Alexandra South, April 17. I