BOYCOTT OF N.Z. PRODUCE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 3, 5 January 1939, Page 5

BOYCOTT OF N.Z. PRODUCE

ROSSENDALE UNION S ACTION I I REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF, TARIFF LONDON, Nov. 25. Reduction of the tariff, and the abolition of the 3s minimum dutyplaced by the New Zealand Government on footwear from the Rossendale Valley, have been sought by the Rossendale Union of Boot, Shoe, and Slipper Operatives in a letter to the High Commissioner for New Zealand, Mr. W. J. Jordan, “now that your elections are over and have been so successful.” Recently, after the executive of the union had refused to allow Mr Jordan to address union members, a ballot was taken, and it was decided to boycott the sale of New Zealahd produce in the Valley (although the quantity of Dominion produce sold there is almost negligible). Mr Jordan, replying Io the letter, said that he has had no indication from the New Zealand Government of its intention to amend its customs tariffs. He was afraid that the “highhanded” action of the union in taking a ballot without meeting his request to address members has not helped the position. He suggested that the decision to boycott might be reconsidered. Union’s Request The letter from the Rossendale Union read:—“Now that your elections are over, and you have been so successful, for which I am well pleased, I wonder if there is a>y hope of a reduction in the tariff on cheap shoes and slippers, and the abolition of the 3s minijnum. Is there? “I could understand your Government’s action if our gpods were produced under sweated conditions, but we are among the best-paid workers in England, and our hours have been 46 a week for 20 years, whilst others have been 48 hours and over in England, and I think our juvenile rates are absolutely the highest in the country. “We do not believe in juveniles working, but in England it is the custom yet, and it is in England that we *>**ist compare our rates and conditions. I am pleased that there has been so much progress made in New Zealand under the Labour Government. but it does seem that the workers of New Zealand are at a disadvantage in having to pay such an exorbitant price for our slippers, or what you might describe as shoes for indoor wear, particularly considering they are produced under good conditions. and the operatives are amongst the highest paid in this country.” Mr Jordan’s ReplyIn reply, Mr Jordan said: “You express your pleasure at the result of the New Zealand election, which result is an endorsement of the policy which your union has decided to boycott. It is unlikely that any consideration will be given to the amendment of the Customs Act, now that the people of the Dominion have so overwhelmingly endorsed the policy of our Government, and, in any case, after your high-handed action in taking a ballot of your members without meeting my request to address members on the subject, I, in turn,

wonder whether you are satisfied with lhe action you have taken. “In my objection to the action — which you evidently prefer—l have refrained from sending to New Zealand, up to the present, a list of proprietary lines and the names of employers and the members .of your union, as if I did so it would be fair if a retaliatory boycott were declared. But I know New Zealand too well to believe that such action on their part would be considered, specially between British countries. “You make quite a point of conditions under which your members must be compared to the conditions in other districts in Britain. If favourable conditions entitle you to consideration, then surely the better conditions in New Zealand entitle the workers of that British Dominion to the kindly consideration of yourselves and members of your union. “As your executive decided on this line of action without an opportunity oi hearing the case from the Dominion, lhe members of your union were allowed to decide to boycott our produce. If your executive wishes to go back ever the g.cun l, and reverse their action then you will undoubtedly take the necessary steps to do that; that is not our business. We are pleased at all times to hear a case fully explained, which principle evidently is not encouraged by lhe executive of your union. "However, in answer to your wonder whether there is any nope of a reduction ol the tariff on cheap shoes and slippers, and the abolition of the 3s minimum, 1 must state that I have had no indication from my Government of their intention so io amend lhe customs tariffs. I am afraid that the action of your union in deciding to boycott our goods has not helped your position very much as your action has made it difficult for your