The Sun WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1928. TWO IN ONE DAY

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 255, 18 January 1928, Page 8

The Sun WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1928. TWO IN ONE DAY

TWO more collisions at level crossings were yesterday added to the appalling list which the railway authorities regard with so much complacency. It is significant that both occurred at the scenes of recent tragedy—one at the notorious Argyle Street crossing, and the other at the Rongotea-Longburn crossing, near Palmerston North, which is also a constant menace to life. It is only a few weeks since a woman was killed and her small son seriously injured at Argyle Street, and but a few days later another life was sacrificed at Rongotea. Scarcely has public indignation—aroused to a high pitch by these fatalities—been abated, than there is another smash at Argyle Street, in which the driver of a motor-lorry miraculously escapes with his life, and another at the Rongotea crossing, whereby a clergyman is killed. Are these manglings of human beings to continue, almost as a daily routine, while the railway authorities languidly argue that the crossings are not dangerous if those who use them exercise “reasonable care,” or argue with local bodies as to who shall pay for their removal? It is time that some drastic action was taken to impress upon the authorities a proper sense of responsibility. The red roll of the crossing is saturated with death and suffering—and the authorities take it from its pigeon-hole whenever there is a fresli killing and peruse it through smoked glasses. They cannot see with the same eyes as the relatives and friends of the unfortunate victims of their apathy. One death at a crossing is not sufficient to move them. Apparently there must be several before they can be convinced that a particular crossing is “realty dangerous.” What is required is the organisation of public meetings in every centre throughout the Dominion where dangerous crossings exist, to demand with no uncertain voice that these grave menaces to life be removed.

THE EXCLUSIVE UNION

AS an instance of a dictatorial and tyrannical body, selfishly exclusive and “select,” the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union will take some beating. There are working on the Waterfront—when the union will permit it, which is only when there is too much for its own members to do-—a large number of “casuals,” who are not unionists because their fellow-workers of the union will not allow them to be. Scorned as “non-unionists,” handed only the dirtiest work, and then only as a “concession,” the lot of these men is a most unhappy one. In the opinion of the “exclusives,” they have neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned.

The union will permit only a limited numerical membership, so that they may all be assured of more work than they can do, when they are inclined to do it. It is very well-paid work, and judging by the number of men employed to sling a hoist of butter or receive a bale of merchandise, it is mostly very easy work. When a ship berths to be unloaded, and the unionists are employed on other ships, the non-unionists are allowed to make a start on that ship. But as soon as there are unionists available, they come aboard and order the others off. The attitude of Dives to Lazarus was charitable compared with the attitude of the unionists to the non-unionists whom they so selfishly keep out of the union. They take the pick of the work, and they often refuse to unload sulphur, phosphates and coal. This “dirty work” is handed to the non-unionists—and when they have done it, the unionists step in and take up the easy going! Under the circumstances, the petition of the non-unionists to the shipping companies, to be allowed to conclude the loading or unloading of a vessel once they have commenced, appears to be fair and reasonable. What these men should do is to band themselves together into an independent union and apply to the Arbitration Court for registration. Then their liberty-loving, equal-opportunity-for-all, comradely fellow-workers, whose leaders so vociferously advocate the rights of labour, might consider the advisability of opening the doors of their exclusive establishment and giving other men who are willing to work a chance of earning a living.

RED TAPE

SIR BENJAMIN FULLER has rendered the community a good service by calling attention, in his vigorous way, to the presence of a red tape tangle. Hundreds of Australian touristmotorists, he points out, have been deterred from paying a visit to the Dominion on account of the restrictions likely to be imposed upon them. “I could more easily frank your ear to, and through, Europe and America than I could to New Zealand,” was the ominous remark of the secretary of the Automobile Association in Sydney to Sir Benjamin—and his pessimism was well founded. Before landing his car. Sir Benjamin was called upon to deposit £250 as a bond to ensure compliance with Customs regulations. And when the chauffeur was about to drive the car from the wharf, the “Verboten!” sign went up again. The car had to be towed from the wharf, said Authority, until a new registration fee had been paid, a New Zealand number-plate purchased (involving loss of identity), and a new driver’s licence obtained. Is it any wonder that automobile associations in New Zealand are perturbed and that overseas tourists with cars fight shy of New Zealand? ’NYe are familiar with tourists’ complaints about the interminable questionnaire to be faced on arrival in our ports. We explain that away with the assurance that an efficient Government Statistician demands such knowledge for the compilation of the Year Book. It would be difficult to find excuses for these other “red tape barriers.” Of what avail the work of the Government Publicity Department and the New Zealand Government Agent in Sydney if tourists are persuaded to visit New Zealand only to find themselves enmeshed m irritating and inelastic regulations ? "