BUILDERS’ LABOURERS.

Evening Star, Issue 22455, 28 September 1936, Page 12

BUILDERS’ LABOURERS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I am well aware that I am under tho influence of a potential weakness and very often arrive at a hasty and sometimes erroneous conclusion. This, no doubt, comes as a result of being the recipient of personal abuse, for not infrequently I have been branded with a number of undignified titles. However, your correspondent “ Wide Awake ” gives his assurance that ho did not mean I was a traitor, but that J. had let the men down, that I was unmindful of their needs, a delinquent, afraid of them becoming my employers, afraid of any new blood being transferred into tho union, afraid of losing control, and that I was afraid of losing my title of a self-styled champion of the working man. I thank your correspondent for the summary. I do agree that a large amount of confusion does exist in arriving at a true interpretation of the recent legislation, not only amongst the rank and file of the working men, but amongst the employers and the Employers’ Association, even amongst the members of tho legal fraternity. Now, if this confusion exists, does your correspondent dare to suggest that I should visit the jobs and hold stop-work meetings whilst I endeavour to explain the amendments to the I.C. and A. Act and tho Finance Act, or that I should make it plain while they are building scaffolds or mixing concrete? The inference is too ridiculous to be entertained., If any working man is anxious to obtain information relating to bis wages or working conditions, the place to receive it is in the Trades Hall, where every courtesy is shown and information-given (to the best of his or her ability) to anyone, whether he is a union man or not. Your correspondent also states that the builders’ labourers have a strong desire to join this union. If this is correct, they will be exceedingly welcome. If the builders’ labourers only knew the great possibilities they might accomplish through organisation they would never hesitate in taking the first step to join their_ union. I had no intention of evading any question in regard to rates of pay, and ■ wish to state that although the builders’ labourers have no award, tho. Finance Act restores the rates of pay specified in the 1931 award. The tone of your correspondent’s letter seems to indicate that ho is far more interested m the employers’ difficulties than any provisional bpnefits introduced for builders’ labourers. He states that the employers are not averse to the introduction of the 40-hour week. From whence comes the squeal? Surely it does not come from the working men. I wonder what we are to expect from the employers’ assessors on October 5. When the labourers realise that the speed of human progress _is _ retarded by an opposing organisation, who, like barnacles, tenaciously cling to the circumstances that suit their benefit, they will take a more active part in their own organisation. As to the basic wage, your correspondent is a genius. With his great imagination he has fixed tho easic rate prior to the sitting of the Arbitration Court, or even before it has commenced taking evidence.* He also states that the basic rate could not apply to builders’ labourers, as they have no award. This proves that your correspondent has not the faintest idea os to what constitutes a basic rate. Workers who are covered by an award have no need _ for _ a basic wage, as this is embodied in their award. The essential need for a basic rate is to make provision where_ no award or industrial agreement exists. In reply to the statement regarding carpenters pressing their _ claims, etc., I wish to state in conclusion that your correspondent would find it difficult to make application to amend that which does not exist.—l am, etc., September 28. R. Harrison.