WATERSIDE TROUBLE.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 October 1925, Page 6

WATERSIDE TROUBLE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The article appearing in your paper re the victimisation of a waterside worker is very interesting indeed to the loyal members of the local waterside workers’ union. One can hardly realise that we have to be associated with such a number of individuals as comprises the Big Eight. Fancy the likes of them calling upon one of our members to attend a meeting and to be dealt with in the manner he was for doing what the great majority of us would have done with pleasure under the circumstances had we been asked! Now, my fellow mates, are we going to tolerate this sort of stuff from these extremists? I say no. What right have a few men, who can eee nothing else but Red, got to interfere with any one of us when we are quite willing to do what is right for the good of the port and the town and to say that one of our mates was scabbing on those men that are doing a month? Now, I say that this is a, most serious matter, and wants seeing into right away. We are not going to let these individuals talk and say just what they like, and to intimidate any one of us when it suits them. We all think that this man will be failing in his duty if he does not issue a summons against everyone of them for using such allegations and statements. What right have they got to order any one of us out of the place, and to say that if he got on another boat he would have a big chance of not getting off again? Yes; perhaps if they had their way he wouldn’t. Or we think he should demand a public apoligy from every one of them.

It was only a few weeks ago, as I mentioned in a previous letter, that these same Reds called a number of us “scabs” for accepting. labour on a certain boat, and for which we made them apologise. Now never again will we put up with this sort of thing. I wonder if they realise the seriousness of the position, and do they know that they are liable to /a term of imprisonment on every single charge of using such an expression? It is quite evident now from the way the£e. men are carrying on that something will have to be done. Cannot the police step in in a case such as the above, instead of this man being ordered away from the town for a term ?

We loyal ■workers would be well rid of this' gang. Jt is very difficult for any loyal man to get up and investigate the workings of the union, or to bring in anything that is to our benefit at the meetings of the union. Unless it entirely complies with their wishes you arc howled down. 1 will just give you one little point as a guide. Not many weeks ago I was present at a particular meeting when one of our men got up and complained about not being allowed to work a certain boat on a Saturday afternoon when meat was in the trucks on the wharf, and had to be returned to Waitara because one or two of this “Big Eight,” who were working on the same boat, said no. Now, this man tried time and again to have his say, and each time he was down. Now this man is married with a large family, and was, with a number of others, perfectly willing to work that afternoon and get the meat in, but he was not allowed to do so, just because these “Big Eight” men who were working said no. What do they care for the man with a family ? They don’t want the work themselves and won’t let anyone else work who is willing. There are quite a number of Mother things that want attending to, but. can be held over until after a new executive is elected. —I am, etc., A WATERSIDER. New Plymouth, Get.' 5.;

(To the Editor.) Sir, —1 wac amused; on reading a report in your paper re the action of the executive of the local waterside workers 4 union in dealing with one of its members for working a winch on the s.s. Port Dunedin on the morning of its departure from Newton King wharf. I understand the meniber was brought before the executive, and all sorts of un'brotherly epithets were hurled at him for doing exactly what several members of the same organisation had done on the same vessel. According to reports, they called this man a ‘‘scab” for driving a winch because several members of the crew were imprisoned, and said it would be unsafe ‘ for him to remain here when the crew again received their freedom. They practically sentenced him to two years’ deportation. Now, •Sir, if it was wrong for this man to work a winch on this occasion, I contend it was wrong for the watersiders to load butter and frozen meat: on this

vessel when the crew are in gaol, fighting for a principle which they evidently think to be right. Will the watersiders who worked this ship be afraid to meet the crew when released? If not, this individual who helped to unmoor this fihip should be able to line up with his fellow unionists and look the crew in the face with as clear A conscience. In any case, the departure of the Port Dunedin did not injure anyone, but, on the other hand, berths are now available for other ships to be worked, and no doubt some of the men who were condemning this man will be the first to benefit financially.—l am, etc., WATERSIDER,