“RED FEDS” AGAIN.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1016, 29 October 1912, Page 3

“RED FEDS” AGAIN.

(To the Editor.)

Sie. —Just a little more of your valuable space in reply to your footnote to my letter in connection with the misstatements of your Moutoa correspondent. First, the position the Waihi strikers find themselves in. 'Jliis is the position, thirty men dictating to six teen hundred, but not of their own tree will, this minority, but at the dictates and instigation of the mine owners, who, seeing that the workers were getting united and stronger, commenced to see things real and otherwise, hence they fomented trouble and used this “loyal minority” of workers to try to force the majority under the C. and A. Act, and also to suit their own unscrupulous ends. Second, you say that the majority of flaxmill employees ignored the invitation to have a day off in protest against the gaoliug of the miueis. Curious, they have six hundred and twenty three members, yet the Standard says that there were five hundred attending the meeting held in Palmerston. Queer majority that! Third, you lay stress on the use of “persona! references,” why, in one paragraph of your issue you state that the employees of a certain mill on the river bank, presumably “Arbitraliuuists,” threatened personal violence to two delegates. Well sir, that is not part of the “Red Feds” creed. Why in Waihi that would be gaol without the option of a flue. The whole trouble is that the employers recognise the power of United Labour, as is shown by their various manifestos recently issued, also their actions. They do object to the worker being educated up to the necessity of federating and organising, such that the employers are assailing and fiercely opposing at, every opportunity by methods that wouid shame even a “Red Fed,” but which plight the Federation has not yet got into, nor likely to despite the antilabour bluster and Massey’s “square deal.” Thanking you for your indulgence. —lam, etc..

K. G. Martin, Seciclary i-.W.W. Union

[Our correspondent is as amusing as his statements are garbled. In our footnote we stated two

facts : (i) that the imprisoned Waihi strikers had themselves to blame for the position they found themselves in ; and (2) That a majority ot the flaxmill employees ignored the invitation of the Federation of Labour to down tools for a day in

sympathy with the imprisoned miners. The strike at Waihi was not between employer and employee, but because a certain section of employees decided to form a union of their own in a perfectly legal and constitutional manner, and to throw off the yoke of the Federation. The employers had nothing to do with the formation of the union, but were perfectly justified in subsequently recognising it. The other remarks of our correspondent can go tor what they are worth. — Ed. H.]

Sir, —Mr E. J. Martin seems to think that my notes re the action of the Federation of Labour are untruthful, and Mr Martin has tried to throw dust in the eyes of the public by saying that the Federation left it optional with the workers whether they ceased work or not. In making that Statement he has cut the ground from under his own feet. His confession admits that the Federation was directly responsible for the workers ceasing work. By the Federation of Labour making it optional, they had to do one of two things, remain at work and be called “ scabs ” by the Federation or come out and sacrifice a day’s wages, which no worker can afford in order to hear Mr Semple deliver an abusive address. The fact that quite a number of employees at Whitaunui remained at home and played cricket, shows that they only ceased work to avoid being called '* scabs,” and they were not in sympathy with the action of the Federation of Labour. In reference to the personal remark made by Mr Martin, I have only to say that personal remarks are not argument and they never carry any weight with sensible people. Then he wants to know what I think of a “boss” putting men off at his own sweet will. I have no sympathy lor such a boss anymore than I have for the worker who leaves his employment under the same conditions. And, if you will allow me, and Mr Marlin feels inclined for a Iriendly argument, I will show him how all that can be avoided without the abusive methods ot the Federation of Labour, who are not achieving anything and who have no object in view.—l am, etc., Moutoa Correspondent.