Rationing Inconsistency.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20219, 1 February 1934, Page 8

Rationing Inconsistency.

Dear Sir.—l see that “ Observer ” is once more patting the Tramway Union on the back. He states “ the present Tramway Board is very sympathetic with *he whole development.” Well, he should know, being closely related to them. He also enlarges on the fact that the rationing system was decided on by a very large majority of men, but he does not state the true facts of the case. Let us review the meeting last Sunday. The question to decide was extended rationing in the traffic section to enable ten or sixteen men to return to the trams. Now, at this meeting were men lepresenting the workshops, car sheds, overhead and traffic departments. It was asked whether the rationing was to take effect in all departments. “ No,” was the answer. Now comes the funny side, for all these rnen voted for rationing in the traffic staff, and they were allowed to do so because they belonged to the same union. If all these men are as sympathetic as “ Observer ” says, why did they not consent to ration in their own departments as well? Then the president stated that the rationing could be reviewed in three months’ time. This means that they will find they have too many men, and start retrenching, thereby getting their own back on the volunteers. Anyone can see these men would be the first to go. It is only the thin edge of the wedge to dribble back all the ex-strikers.—l am, etc., OBSERVER NO. 2.