Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, MARCH 28, 1949 BUILDING DISPUTE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 70, 28 March 1949, Page 4

Bay Of Plenty Beacon Published Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. MONDAY, MARCH 28, 1949

BUILDING DISPUTE

On Friday Auckland newspapers published a statement that the Auckland Concrete and Clay Roof Tilers’ Association had

advised the Auckland Trades Council that it would not take action that would spread the industrial dispute beyond the metropolitan area. Taken at its face value that might be a comforting assurance, but the unpleasant fact is that it is not necessary to take further direct action to spread the effects of the dispute far and wide.

We in Whakatane have already felt its repercussions in that the involvement of the tilers has retarded work on the block of State houses that spelt hope to our many homeless. Now that hope seems indefinitely deferred.

And, though everyone knows that only a few of the many who need houses desperately could be helped were the block at present under construction completed, it is still a fact that watching steady progress does at least give the homeless some ground for speculation on the comfortable possibility that perhaps, some day, they might have the good fortune to be selected as tenants.

When Auckland’s industrial dispute hits us right in our vital spot, so to speak, it becomes of considerably more interest to us straight away. But we have reason to be thankful that the repercussions have not been even more direct. Fortunately the Unions have not seen fit yet to make a national issue out of a local quarrel. At one stage of the piece it looked as though that would happen, and we have cause to be grateful to the moderates amongst the drivers for breaking up a move that might have sprgad to tie up the whole Island’s transport system. They set us an example in showing clearly that men of good sense need not allow themselves to be herded into unwise actions against their better judgment by an inflammatory hw. Which gives point to an argu-! ment advanced in these columns \ previously—that the great dan-I ger in compulsory unionism lies in the apathy of the rank and file of conscripted unionists to union affairs. However thin the! thread of democracy that runs i through the system, it is there, I and could be turned to advantage by the more moderate elements if only they would use it intelligently. While still insisting that .the arbitrary conscription of workers into unions is undemocratic and an intolerable interference with the rights of individuals, we do believe that, until - the law can be altered bv a Government with a less dictatorial outlook, workers themselves should make the best of a bad job by trying to protect their own interests

and those of others as much as they can within the framework of existing rules. It would seem, therefore, that our best hope for a return to industrial tranquility rests on the concerted intelligent action of the more responsible types within the unions.

It should be fairly safe to say that, at a full muster of the membership of any union, common sense would outvote hotheaded pressure elements. But, how often is there a full muster?

It is not unnatural for a free people like ourselves to resent being kicked around. And for that reason it is quite to be expected that, having been forced into the unions we should feel so much resentment that we do not want anything to do with the conduct of their affairs. But, however understandable that attitude might be, it must be admitted that it is not a very sensible one.

Obviously the quick route back to industrial sanity is for the vast majority of conscripted unionists who are sensible, reasonable people, to take charge of their unions bv means of their voting power and direct the efforts of these powerful organisations into constiuctive channels.