CORRESPONDENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 March 1921, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

“WE WON’T WORK; YOU SHAN’T.’’

(To the Editor.) Sir.—ln your report re the troubles at the Wellington, Auckland and other docks, there is one line pregnant with meaning. It is to the effect that volunteer labor cannot be called for because of the preference clause in the agreement. Here is the crux; of the whole matter as I pointed out in my last letter to you. Why should one set of men have' preference shown tt&m over another? Why, if Jack will not work, should not Tom be allowed to do so? Preference to Unionists simply means that sheltered behind it, any set of men can pursue a “Dog in Manger’’ policy—we won’t work, and you shan’t. If preference tc Unionists is such a good thing, why should It not be applied all round? If the bootmaker is compelled (as he is) to employ only workmen belonging to the Bootmaker’s Union, why should not tho docker be compelled tt> buy his boots only from a firm who belongs to the Boot Retailer’s Union, and so on all round? If employers are compelled to employ only members of workers’ unions, why should not workers be compelled to work only for those who are members of Employers’ Unions? Such a proposition, if made seriously, would not be entertained for a moment, but the one is just, as fair and logical as the other. If the docks were thrown open to free labor, the present trouble would be over in twenty-four hours. Then wl\v should it not be done, done now as in 1913? The present state of affairs is costing the country thousands of pounds. Why should a union of four or five hundred men be allowed to inflict this burden on their fellows? The remedy is in our own hands. Abolish preference to unionists.—l am etc;, RICHARD ROWE.