The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1911. AUCKLAND LABOURERS' STRIKE.

Waipa Post, Volume II, Issue 57, 31 October 1911, Page 2

The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1911. AUCKLAND LABOURERS' STRIKE.

THE Labourers' Strike in Auckland, whereby 600 of them —all more or less ignorant of the reason for striking dropped their tools and put on their coats, is a glaring instance of what this country is coming to as a result of the " levelling-down " doctrine of recent years. The whole cause of —or rather excuse for —the present trouble is that some honest, hard-working members of the Labourers' Union, who could trust each other to do a good day's work combined and approached a Drainage Board contractor and asked if he would let them a subcontract, as they could make more money both for themselves and him that way, than by working on clay wages with men who could not, or would not, do a fair day's work. The contractor agreed —the fat was in the fire — and the Union officials ordered a strike. One of these officials — Semple by name —told the Mayor of Auckland that " the Union had no desire to dislocate the city, but if need be, we will paralyse the whole of New Zealand. We have a bona-fide grievance." The Mayor very pertinently asked why the Union ordered the strike without taking any steps to avert it. Why had the men been called out and kept out for four days before the Union considered it worth while officially notifying either the Drainage Board or himself as chief citizen that there was trouble. The only excuse or

explanation these precious officials could offer was that Mr Somebody, who was really nobody, had told some other "Somebody " who was also a nobody that the Union would order its members to strike if there was any sub-contracting. This threat coming to the cars of the contractor, led to the cancellation of the sub-contract, but the Union, evidently " spoiling for a fight/' demanded a declaration from the drainage Board that sub-con rn ting would forever be prohi :l. i This impudent demand was -y rightly ignored by the Boarc, < id although no grievance ex >:, i, I owing to the cancellation fcy tne contractor of the sub-con tract) yet these precious—and presumably well-paid—officials, took the unwarranted stand of calling i Union members out, in case, as argued by a Union official named Fraser, there might someday, in the dim future, be a grievance. This called from the Mayor (Mr Parr) —who got off some very plain talk to these Union officials —the retort: " Then you take up this position, that because a contractor may or may not at some future date permit sub-contract-ing, you proceed to strike, which is a most serious thing to the community. You did it before the Board met, and now four days after the strike, you approach us for the first time." While we have much sympathy with Trades Unionism, and are fully alive to its many advantages, yet we are at a loss for sufficiently scathingterms to denounce such prostitution of the rights of Labour as is here evidenced. The moral tone of Labour in New Zealand to-day —thanks to the lcvelling-down doctrine, —is rotten to the core. Let. the leader of the handful of honest hardworking men, who were prepared to take this subcontract, speak for himself and his mates. When interviewed, he said: "I and my mates consider it most unfair to be forced to work with men who can't or won't do a fair day's work and receive the same pay when we could be earning £l per day." And this is the fruits of "levelling down." By all means protect the weakling, the deficient* but for pity sake let us stop dragging the competent down and foisting the deficient up, oth to false levels, unless as a nation we are bent on sinking to that effeteness which under pi- sent conditions if continued is New Zealand's inevitable goal.