THE SLAUGHTERMEN’S STRIKE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 53, 26 November 1926, Page 3

THE SLAUGHTERMEN’S STRIKE

Sir,—l have just read your leader appearing in this morning’s issue and headed, "Workers Led Astray. I dou t know exactly how many workers have been led astray so far by incorrect and misleading statements in the Press, but I am sure that this article is either designed to mislead the workers or is accidentally eminently suited tu that purF °ln’ the first place, the report of the Hawke’s Bay meeting referred to jn your first paragraph is far from correct. For this, of course, you are in no way responsible. The actual facts are, though, that the meeting was of a most orderly character, and no "hostile questions were asked,” nor was there any evidence of hostility. It is not my intention, however, to claim your valuable space to correct these kinds of misrepresentations, which are common, in everv industrial dispute and in times of war. There are other statements, however, In your article which tend to mislead because they do not embrace all the facts; and with your permission I will add some of these missing facts. Take the following: "Employers who may be willing to discuss matters with a union are much less ready to - meet tiie Alliance of Labour.” It is only fair when your readers peruse this that they should know that two written requests from the union to the employers to meet in conference were turned down flatly by the employers before the dispute was made the business of the Alliance of Labour. Had the employers acceded to the request of the union for a conference they might have been able to relata such a story as that told by Mr. Bishop, and referred to in your article; “but the award has not expired” might be your reply, with the inference that the workers should have waited until its expiry. Perhaps this fact would enable your readers to appreciate, the temper of the men engaged in this industry. When the present award was framed one of the points upon which agreement could not be reached was the term ofl the award. The union wanted a shortdated award of one year. The employer, wanted the period fixing at two The question was referred to the Court of Arnitration, and the Court made it three years. Possibly the Court thought that if it added the two claims together it might for once please both parties. However, in September last year th. Court discovered that the basic wage of workers was too low by one penny par hour, and intimated that in future awards it would observe this new minimum. , Under these circumstances your readers might agree there is some justification for the workers’ request for a conference to adjust this. It might be interesting also to note that earner m the year l the employers wanted an amendment to the award, dealing with tiie rates for killing calves. They certainly did not put the question in th* hands of expert agreement breakers; seeming to be quite expert themselves they proceeded to ride roughshod oyer the'award, and agreed to meet the union later, when really what should have happened was a case for breach of award. These facts, together with the further fact that all that has been asked for is a conference, puts the question in different light to that in your leader. If your paper, and others, would give tiie prominence to these facts given to a false renort of the Hastings meeting there will bo less "workers led astray.’ —— I am etc ’ ’ "ONE IN THE KNOW.” November 25, 1926.