L.R.C. and Council.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 379, 22 March 1932, Page 6

L.R.C. and Council.

To the Editor. Dear Sir, —Mr E. Parlane says that ifji knew anything I would say it. I did say it, and said it very plainly, but not from an unworthy motive as he would like your readers to believe. If what I wrote had not been true Mr Parlane would not have lost his temper over the matter. My statements are also proved by the fact that our council employees are receiving higher rates of pay than is being paid for similar services in any other parts of the country. They are receiving higher wages than the Arbitration Court awarded; they are escaping the sacrifices that have become necessary, and they are benefiting by the sacrifices of others, and by so doing are lowering the standard of living for other workers. Mr Parlane says he has had to sign no pledges since he was elected, and that there were no pledges. In one of his letters he said that any good unionist would willingly give the pledges required, so his two letters contradict each other. Those who wish to represent the Labour Party have to sign the pledges before their names can be placed on the list of probable candidates, and not after they have been elected, so Mr Parlane is only trying to dodge.

Mr Parlane wrote that I had a tyrannical mind, and would prevent the council employees from taking an interest in citizenship. We can pass over the fact; but as regards the latter, it is questionable whether our city council employees are really taking an interest in citizenship or only taking an interest in themselves. So far as one can judge, their idea -of citizenship consists in obtaining higher wages than they earn, escaping taking their just share of the sacrifices that are necessary, and generally making a specially pampered class of themselves. Unless these abuses stop, and whether I approve of it or not, or whether Mr Parlane objects to it or not, they will lose their citizenship and they will only have themselves to blame. By means of the control they have exercised over City Council affairs through their unions and the L.R.C., they have controlled the City Council, and so brought about these abuses. Mr Parlane tried to be unpleasant in his last paragraph. That doesn’t matter much; it was only a very mild sample of what a union secretary will say when he is wild, and such are often wild. I did not take part in this discussion for the sake of having an argument with Mr Parlane, but to show up an abuse that sadly needs remedying. It is of no consequence whether he takes notice of it or not; it was the public I wrote to, not to him in particular. He evidently thinks that City Council business - should be the prerogative of union secretaries. He is in error there. It is not only the right, it is the duty of every citizen to take an interest in city affairs. Unfortunately not many do so, with the result that union secretaries think they should be the only ones.—l am, etc., X