THAT VOTE OF CENSURE.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 370, 11 March 1932, Page 8

THAT VOTE OF CENSURE.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—May I crave a little space to reply to your correspondent A. r.Armstrongs letter in your issue of March 7. Mr Armstrong wants to know what sort of meeting passed a vote ot censure on him. The meeting referred to was a well-attended one and full} representative of the union concerned and when Mr Armstrong asks such pertinent questions I, as well as my members, recognise that his desire is to further undermine. He refers in a very unmannerly and sarcastic tone to the cosy little jobs the union secretaries have. I can inform your correspondent that as far as I am concerned I have been a union secretary for a period of nine years, and if he cares to come and examine my bank-book he will find that I ha\ e not accumulated ar.y money during that period, and I am sure even m> worst enemy could accuse me or extravagant living. As far as the work part of the cosy job goes, I have never managed to have any leisure time at my disposal in my life and the cosy part of the job is non existent If Mr Armstrong will cast his recollections back a few years, he will remember having aspired to one of the secretarial jobs in the Hall, but the members of the organisation, m their wisdom, as it has since transpired, turned him down. Probably this is one of the reasons for his sarcasm.

I am entirely- opposed to Mr Armstrong’s idea of reducing the standard of living of men who are already- onlyreceiving a living wage. It is only- a rase of making the poor keep the more poor and helping to perpetuate the present, rotten system of production tor profit—a system where capitalists it they cannot make profits, shut up their industries and deny thousands of persons the right to work, produce, and Pam a livelihood. My organisation has worked for years to endeavour to get a shorter working week, but owing to this present system militating against us, and the fact that the Arbitration <"ourt has always been loaded by a proportion of two to one against the workers, we have been unsuccessful. However, we have never stood for the principle of a reduction in the weekly wage, as we have realised how imposible it was for anyone to rear a family and do them justice on a less amount. , , , New Zealand, with its wonderful resource?, climatic conditions, modern machinery, etc., is capable of producing sufficient to keep all its inhabitants and more in a very high standard. ■Even its poorest citizen should be aole ro live in as good a degree of comfort as our City Council employees. Your correspondent, again, in his well-known sarcastic manner, says he will not be dragged at the tail of a Labour caucus. I am sure, as a member of the Labour Party, we do not want persons in our organisation who will go about advocating a reduced standard of living for persons who are already only receiving a wage sufficient to exist upon. The trouble is that Mr Armstrong will always persist on classing himself as a Labour man. Personallv I think I have fully explained where I stand, and any further rorrespondence on the subject will be ignored.—l am. etc. E. PARLANE.