ELECTING BOARD

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1930, Page 11

ELECTING BOARD

ATTITUDE OF ALLIANCE TRADES COUNCIL CRITICISES GRAVE INJUSTICE FEARED PAYMENT FOR WORKLESS By Telegraph.—'Press Association. ■Wellington, Last Night. “A grave injustice will be __ done to workers affiliated to the Wellington Trades ■•Council and we think to the large: majority of the workers of the Dominion if they are in any way associated with the threat of a refusal to pay' the levy into the unemployment fund or to refuse to co-operate with the Unemployment Board as suggested by the Alliance of Labour deputation,’ says the executive of the Wellington Trades and Labour. Council in a statement issued to-day. “The Unemployment Act as passed recently is not ideal from the point of the Labour movement,” the executive continues. “The movement took every legitimate step to secure the required amendments; we did not succeed and were naturally disappointed. The position, however, will not be improved by refusing co-operation with the board. “In regard to the method of appointment of the representatives to the board the Minister would be well advised to take a ballot on the unions on the nominations received in the I manner adopted when appointing the representatives to the Court of Arbitration. “The members of the executive of the Alliance of Labour may determine rhe methods of showing their disapproval of procedure in appointing workers’ representatives to the Unemployment Board, but they must accept full responsibility for their own actions and not suggest that their actions have been determined by the- affiliations to the organisation. Neither should they suggest that.organisations are acting against their adiice. This is neither correct nor fair to the organisations inside or outside the Alliance of Labour and pr'obably more will be heard of this at a later date. “May we cite some of the incidents which have led up to the present position. On October 23 the Wellington council held its usual meeting. At this meeting executive members of the Alliance of Labour were present. Forty delegates were in attendance representing the majority of unions affiliated to the trades council. This meeting carried a resolution recommending all affiliated unions to nominate Messrs. W. Bromley and F. D. Cornwell as the workers’ representatives on the Unemployment Board. “Following this meeting and prior to the next fortnightly meeting of the council the executive of. the Alliance of Labour issued a circular to unions throughout the Dominion urging them to protest against the method of appointment and to forward a letter to the Minister of Labour to this effect and at the same time to intimate that they would not co-operate with the Govern merit in its administration of the unemployment scheme until the workers were conceded the fundamental right of selecting their own representatives on the board.

“At a meeting of the Wellington council held on November 5, executive members of the Alliance again being present, a. motion to endorse the action taken by the Alliance of Labour executive was defeated by a large majority. “Members of the council questioned the sincerity of the members of the A Ilian re of Labour executive in view of their repeated -public declarations that they would oppose the unemployment measure, which ,they described as a wage-reducing union-splitting measure, and would call upon workers to prevent it from operating.” The statement proceeds to doubt the sincerity of the Alliance on the ground that on the invitation of the Prime Minister the Alliance appointed a member to the unemployment committee without consulting a single union.. It is also recalled that the alliance favoured Mr. Roberts’ appointment as delegate to the international labour conference but the Minister had decided upon a vote. The council reminds the deputation that members of the unions which have sent nominations far exceeds the membership of the alliance. SECRETARY CONTRADICTED ACTION BY ALLIANCE OF LABOUR. NOTE TO UNIONS URGES PROTEST. Wellington, Nov. 12. The suggestion of the Minister of Labour at yesterday’s deputation regardinc* the Unemployment Board that the opposition to the method of selecting the workers’ representatives on the board had come not from the unions but from the Alliance of Labour, was denied by the secretary, Mr. J. Roberts. A letter forwarded by the Alliance to various trade unions on the subject has been sent to the Press since the report of the deputation was published yesterday. The date of the letter is November 3, and it is signed “Roberts.” It bears out the Minister’s suggestion. The letter says: “As several industrial organisations have communicated with the Alliance requesting the organisation to give a lead as to whom the unions should nominate, a special meeting of the Alliance was held on October 2, and the meeting decided to wait on the Ministei of Labour and request that the unions should elect two members from the nominations received. A. deputation accordingly waited on the Minister, and he definitely refused to allow the workers to elect their representatives. “A circular was forwarded to the affiliations with the Alliance intimating that as the recognised principle of electing representatives of the Labour movement on any board or council was not followed, the, Alliance would not take any part whatever in the nomination of candidates. As the replies indicated that the affiliations did not understand the actual procedure by which members of the board would be selected, a special meeting was called, and the secretary was directed by it to communicate with all the unions in the Dominion and request organised workers to protest against the decision of the Minister.” The letter goes on to deal with the subsequent protest, and an appeal is made to organised workers to support the national organisation iu a demand foi a ballot. SUPPORT FOR THE SCHEME AUCKLAND UNIONISTS’ ATTITUDE. “UNEMPLOYMENT PERMANENT.” Auckland, Nov. 12. Although the unemployment levy is unpopular, Labour unionists in Auckland are on the whole favourable to the legislation passed last session. Mr* Oscar Mcßrine, who was a mem-

ber of the Unemployment Committee, said: ‘‘We arp not prepared to pull down tho house because we cannot have the rooms furnished to our taste.” They realised that the present position was <mave and believed that unemployment was not a passing phase but a permanent feature of modern society, needing permanent machinery to deal with it. As everyone had to contribute, all would ffive attention to unemployment, which Fn the past had .been the concern only of the few. He pointed out that the Unemployment Board would be the driving power of the Act and would be assisted by a local committee, probably similar to tho repatriation committee. The Unemployment Board differed from similar boards elsewhere in that its primary function was to supply and foster employment. Elsewhere the ma- ■ chinery was to provide relief, and it usually stopped at that.