CR. ARMSTRONG REPLIES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 366, 7 March 1932, Page 7

CR. ARMSTRONG REPLIES.

To the Editor. Dear Sir.—Councillor Parlane did not state in his reply whether the meeting which decided against my proposal concerning the working of a forty-hour week, for the purpose of providing the maximum number of workers with regular employment, was representative of the council drivers or the unemployed drivers By the attitude that the Drivers’ Union has adopted, however, it must fully realise that sixty unemployed families are to be denied the necessities of life during the coming winter. The sum of £4 regularly per week may sound very paltry to some of the union secretaries in their cosy little jobs at the Trades Hall, but it would be a God-send for sixty worried mothers to know that their husbands had been enabled to secure employment and it would bring happiness even to the youngest children to realise that they were no longer dependent upon any charitable institution for , existence, and that their fathers, who are hard, honest workers, were to be allowed to render a social service to the community. The men would earn in an honourable way a wage which, although not large, is considerably larger than the wage received by myself and a very large percentage of pther citizens of Christchurch. I voted with the Labour Councillors to restore the cut to the workers, because I did not consider the Council wages bill too large, but I do consider it should be divided among more homes by the employment of additional workers. Councillor Parlane states in his plea for the employees who arc working under the jurisdiction of the union he has the honour to represent that my scheme would reduce some of the workers to £4 per week. But I find after perusing the wages bill for the council drivers that the average weekly wage received for the last twelve months was £5 8s Id, so that a half holiday with a corresponding reduction in wages would still allow for an average of £5 weekly. The union of which I have the honour to be the vice-president has worked hard for shorter hours and better conditions, arid its members are at present working short time in order to keep fourteen of their union mates in employment. The principle ol rationing in preference to dismissals has been endorsed by nearly eyer\ r in-

dustrial union of workers, realising that every additional man thrown out of empiovment swells the already large army of unemployed workers and consequently adds to their difficulties. Surely, seeing that such a large percentage of workers have voluntarily agreed to rationing on top of their 10 per cent cut, it is the duty of the unions affected to inform employees in the employ of the council that the right and proper thing to do is to accept the half-holiday, and with the corresponding reduction they will still be well ahead as regards the wages of most other workers. ... Councillor Parlane will not debate the question publicly as I desired. He also is aware of the fact that I was elected on both occasions as an independent Labourite. Because lam determined to honour every pledge I made to the electors, regardless of the decisions of the Labour councillors’ caucus, and continue to think for myself in preference to being dragged at the tail of party, which is dominated bv a few, 1 am branded as a disloyalist by a party man such as Councillor

Parlane. I feel, however, because of the lact that I have no official organisation to take my instructions from, that before taking further steps, I should place my case before a public meeting and abide by the decision arrived at by the meeting after 1 have outlined, the details of my proposal. For this purpose I will address a meeting ot citizens in Victoria Square next Sunday afternoon. —I am, etc., A. E. ARMSTRONG. March 6, 1932.