Mr Parlane’s Reply.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 364, 4 March 1932, Page 5

Mr Parlane’s Reply.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—l notice, according to a letter appearing in a recent issue of your paper, that Councillor A. E. Armstrong feels aggrieved because the Drivers’ Union at its annual meeting passed a vote of censure on him for his recent actions in trying to reduce the standard of living of the employees of the Christchurch City Council. Councillor Armstrong throws out challenges promiscuously to the president of the union, myself or any other Labour councillors to debate the matter with him publicly. I wish to inform Councillor Armstrong that neither the president of my union nor myself was in any way responsible for the motion that was moved and carried unanimously, and the publication was done on instructions from the meeting. Further, I wish to inform Councillor Armstrong that as far as I am concerned I have no wish to debate this matter for the following reasons:—

I would refuse point blank to appear on a public platform with anyone who would join a body such as the Labour Partv and merely because he could not be the dominating factor, would turn disloyal to it. It is not my intention to enter into a controversy with Councillor Armstrong; but as he has made certain statements I would like to explain my position. I will never support any motion that is going to reduce the standard of living of the City Council employees to £4 per week, while the cost of living remains as at present. From my own experience I am quite sure that any man with a family cannot live in anything like comfort on under £5 per week. Take the council employees:—Before they receive their wages many of them have over 9s per week deducted for superannuation; then they have to pay into the sick fund. On the top of that is the unemployment levy and wages tax, also lodge dues and union fees, with a probable increase in wages tax.

I happen to know personally a number of old City Council employees who have had to rear families, and, although they have lived as economically as possible, they are still paying interest on mortgaged homes.

I quite realise that the policy Councillor Armstrong is expounding will appeal to some people. First, there is the greedy employer, who can always see a little extra profit if he can get cheap labour; then there is always a certain class of person who never likes to see anyone with more than themselves and will always try to drag anyone receiving more down to their level. My idea is to organise and build up, not pull down. I am just as earnest in my desires to see a 40-hour week as Councillor Armstrong, but am of the opinion that it must be introduced nationally so that things can be adjusted to ensure a reasonable standard of living for the workers.

In conclusion, I would just like to refer to the attitude of Councillor Armstrong in dictating to the unions what they should do in regard to the 40-hour week. I have made inquiries and find that he has never yet pushed the matter in his own union, and if he is to be consistent he should start there first.—l am, etc., E. PARLANE.