Agreements.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 2, Issue 75, 16 August 1912, Page 4

Agreements.

And who Tosses them to Hell. Agreements? These are the things that the Federation of Labor is accused of breaking with the uttermost recklessness of consequences and disregard of the rights of employers. We aro told that the Federation net only preaches but practises the doctrine of "tossing agreements to hell," that it advocates that these compacts between employers misemployed arc to be ''torn and scattered into tiny fragments into the lowest depths of Erebus." And what do we find are the real facts? Why, that though one particular writer in the Federation's paper advocated such treatment of those much-discussed documents, the Federation has never repudiated or broken any agreement entered into by it in behalf Of any of its constituent parts; while, on the other hand, the employers, oozing out unctuous piety and virtuous indignation, and moral uprightness from every pore, have deliberately broken not only Federation agreements, but their breaches of Arbitration Court awards aro simply paralysing in number. Just' turn up Harry Holland's article of recent issue, note the figures therein set out for all to read, and convince yourselves that this is so.

Isn't the Rcefton lock-out the. result' of tho bosses' breaking of their bond? Of course, ; t is. The annual report of the Tnangaliua Miners' Union truthfully states that "tho union is simply on its defence, that the employers are. the aggressors, and that the union is not asking for fresh conditions or concessions, but is merely fighting to maintain the conditions of employment fls embodied in our agreement." Such is the case, and none can deny it.

This agreement has still 12 months to run, and the employers have broken it by seeking to introduce into the mines conditions of work entirely different to those laid down in the pact between the imion und the mining companies. And isn't this Waihi strike also due to the breaking of their agreement by the mining; magnates? Again we reply —Of course it is- Tlio strikers were, working under an agreement which embraced all departments of industry connected with the mines.

Koto thaiJ the title of the strikers' union is "The "Waihi Workers' Union." It is not "The Waihi Miners' Union." The membership embraced all classes of workers attached to the mines, including, bear in mind, engine-drivers, and the agreement under which the union worked covered all the distinct sections Of emple-yces.

Thus the employers, by saiiotiioniiiL: the formation of a, separate union of engine-drivers, distinctly violated tlio agreement under which all their .hands were, working. If they had not desired the. violation of the agreement, th>\v would have, Tofitsed to countenance, the establishment of the new union. They would have insisted that .the engiue-

drivers were parties to an agreement whifli embraced all flic workers on the field, and that no alteration of the constitution of the union of employees would be countenanced till at least the expiration of the period covered by the present agreement.

]>ut no! They wanted to break up the union, to break down the might of the combined organisation, and to break into the ranks of the Federation of Labor, leaving them in confusion and disruption, in order to compel other affiliated unions to break away from the Federation and be sapped of spirit and shorn of strength under the influence of Arbitration '"dope" —in short, to smash the local union first, then the Federation, and force the disintegrated remnants back umlor the jurisdiction of the court.

Yes, the employers, nob the tion, Hie the people who have agreements to hell. w

Mr. Rhodes, what a smug hypocrite and canting humbug you are.

What a Pharisaical prevaricator!