SOUTH AUCKLAND UNIONS

Waikato Times, Volume 123, Issue 20668, 1 December 1938, Page 11

SOUTH AUCKLAND UNIONS

(To the Editor) Sir, —As my own name and that of the union which I have the honour to represent were both specifically mentioned and criticised in a letter appearing under the nom-de-plume of “Facts" in your issue of November 2G, I would appreciate the privilege of replying to some of the mis-state-ments, half-facts, and purely specious arguments contained therein In the first place, may I comment that the views expressed by “Facts” would in my opint*: have carried far greater weight if he had had the courage of his convictions and had signed his name to his letter. Anyone can hide In an anonymous ambush and circulate irresponsible statements. If “Facts” is really such a genuine and public-spirited champion of the workers against this alleged Communist dictatorship and extremist control of the trade unions in general, and this union in particular, surely he need not fear to corrfe out in the open I However, as regards members of the Communist Party having gained control of the Auckland District Labourers’ and Related Trades Union, I he writer has been a financial member of and actively associated with this union since its reorganisation in 193 G, and can state positively that at no time during this period has it been under such control. The president (Mr E. F. Bradley), now in his second term of office, is" a well-known figure in Labour Party circles and has been chairman of the Morningside branch for the past eight or nine years. Of the previous executive only one to my knowledge was a member of the Communist Party; none of the present executive are members, as far as I know; and only comparatively few of the rank and file, and I myself am a member of some standing in the Labour Party. The secretary is a leading member of the Communist Party, but, like any other secretary, he is under the direct control of the executive and the union, who lay down the policy, and his job is to carry that policy into effect. He can, and does, direct the policy no more and no less than any other secretary of any other union or organisation. His ability, integrity and sincerity of purpose are unquestioned, and his political affiliations have nothing whatever to do with the position which he holds. Further, it is generally recognised by those qualified to express an opinion that his outstanding ability and energetic efforts have been mainly responsible for the sue- 1 cessful reorganisation of the union and its present sound position and high standing in the industrial movement, which has been achieved in the face of and despite the continuous obstructive, destructive and disruptive tactics adopted by a handful of incompetent opportunists and little would-be dictators in Hamilton and Tauranga, assisted and encouraged by forces inimical to the trade union movement. Incidentally it seems significant to me that whenever any trade union or trade union official adopts a strong, positive and progressive policy the cry of “Communist control,” “dictatorship,” etc., is Immediately raised in certain quarters. Either this cry is only a “Red bogey” or it is a striking tribute to the Communist Party—their opponents cannot have it both ways. For “Facts” to include the labourers in the Te Kuiti district with those in Hamilton, Tauranga and Thames is, in my opinion, an insult to the Te Ivulti men, who have consistently fulfilled their obligations, financial and other, to the union. The other sections have not done so, and by their own actions have forfeited the right to take any part in union matters. They also cannot have it both ways. Control and discipline are necessary in any union or organisation. The application for a separate South Auckland union was referred to the Federation of Labour by the Minister because: (1) "This was an industrial matter, and (2) the Federation of Labour is the recognised leading industrial organisation in New Zealand and the one which formulates trade union policy, etc. Please note that it is not dominated by Communists, either! Therefore the Minister, quite rightly, ; desired an expression of opinion from the Federation of Labour to guide him in his decision. The recommendation from the federation, after full consideration. was that the application be refused, and the Minister's final decision was to the same effect. In roply to the very plausible but entirely false and misleading arguments concerning the definitions of “non-unionist,” “financial” and “unfinancial” member of a union, etc., etc., I wish to draw attention to one little thing that “Facts” has most unfortunately overlooked —the clause inserted in every award 4iy the Court of Arbitration and headed “Workers to be members of union” —-the compulsory unionism clause, which reads as follows: “It- shall not be lawful for anv employer bound by this award to employ or" to continue to employ in any position or employment subject to this award any adult person who is not for Hie time being a member of an industrial union of workers bound by Ibis award, or who is not for the time being a member of a trade union which was registered as such before Ihe ist day of May, 1930. and which is bound by this award.” Please note particularly the words “for the time being.” Surely it :s obvious to any intelligent person that compulsory unionism must, in effect and actual practice, require workers to he actual members of the appropriate union now, at the present time, for the time being—to he financial members, because only in that, manner can actual membership be claimed or secured. To argue and quibble as “Facts” does is typical and clearly reveals the lamentably low calibre and mentality of these self-styled trade unionists obstructed every constructive effort ~f ibis union, and who by their deliberate misrepresentations have misled t lie labourers throughout the South Auckland area into a state of confusion and chaos. However, I confidently believe that the labourers will no longer he misled, especially when they compare the constructive record and progressive policy of the union leaders with that of these little local leaders like “Facts.” A quotation used by -{he Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage lias long been a favourite know them’.” By their works, mark von. not. by their words!” Judged by ibis standard the methods pursued by “Facts” and his kind show the following results: The labourers through- i out the area are confused and dis- | organised; not one useful or construe- j

live move has been made to improve their conditions, etc. (the reverse has happened, in fact) ; the funds collected and held locally have simply been j frittered away and wasted; nothing of I a practical or progressive nature has I either been accomplished or initiated i —truly an inglorious record of incom- j petence, mismanagement and misleadership! It seems to me that one thing that is surely necessary and desirable in a place of the size and so situated as Hamilton is a trades hall, comprising meeting rooms, union offices, library, reading rooms, etc., and I am certain that had the local branches of the labourers’ and other unions been conducted along the sound and progressive lines followed by the local branch of the Carpenters’ Union, for example, a trades hall would by now have been an accomplished fact in Hamilton. Further, there is the matter of a workingmen's club, etc., and a dozen and one other educational facilities and useful social amenities that could be collectively provided and maintained by the trade unionists of Hamilton and the surrounding districts. No, “Facts," I do not believe that the union will have to sue about 500 to 700 members for union dues when they realise the actual policy and real j purpose of their organisation, hut I will say this, that both the union and the writer have tried by all conciliatory means to reach "an amicable settlement. If “Facts,” or any other misguided individuals want to go the “lough” way then we are quite willing to oblige. But don't say we did not warn you!—l am. etc., CHAS. GREAVES. South Auckland Organiser. Hamilton, November 30.