Employers of Labor.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 502, 4 September 1890, Page 3

Employers of Labor.

Thzbi were over fifty present at the* meeting in the Masonic Hotel yesterday afternoon, to discuss the Labor question. On the motion of Mr Evans, Mr Murphy was voted to the chair. The Chairman said the meeting had been called to discuss the Labor question. Mr E. Mills suggested that some resolution might be given having reference to the subject, and it could then be discussed. Mr Chambers said he had been entrusted with a resolution which had previously been diem good by a number of those present, tphis was one of the most serious things they had ever to deal with in Poverty Bay. He did not object to Unionism, but the later developments resolved into tyranny, not only against employers, but also against free laborers, He hoped the question would be discussed in a dispassionate way, and no side issues introduced. Where a working man got his full rights, he should not be allowed to npset the whole trade of the colonies. The step they should take should be to make a bold front, and not allow tyranny to be used against those who did not choose to join these Unions. The resolution was :— '■ That this meeting views with regret the present labor strike* which have partially disorganised trade, and proposes to take whatever steps may be hereafter found necessary to con serve the perfect freedom of both employers and employees, and that a Committee be formed for the purpose of givjnz effect to the resolution.” Mr G, L. Sunderland seconded. One reason for calling the meeting was that it was proposed to form several new Unions in thia district. He had not a word to say against Unionism so long as it kept to its fair limits, to secure fair wages. In this district the hands were working amicably With their employer, and the highest wages grere being paid, and they knew perfectly Well that station emp'oyers con'd not afford ♦ogive more If the proposed Union were organised and fixed a minimum rate of wages there were many who wonld be thrown ont of

work, because there wu a great difference between the capacity of men to do station ' Work. Some men could do a great deal more work than others, and if there was an ftMmpt to put them on an equality, a contie number must be thrown out. Jt wee in the interests of a great number of those man that the meeing *M celled, They said they did not wbb to bare a Union, but if employers were not going t > back th<-m up they would be •ompeUed to join. The men knew, too, that if employers had to pay higher wages they eould dispense wi'h many hands, and thus there would be less work for the men. He had not the slightest objection to Unions so long as th«y kept fairty to their object of tndeavorfag to get fair wages, but now they Were going altogether beyond the mark. It Employers used the same boycotting methods, fU men would say they were rerortidg to the Worst features of the old truck srslem, yet they did the very seme thing. The present strike was not caused through a grievance about wages— it was through some indirect quarrel with which New Zealand had nothing to do, and he believed that if a good Board of Conciliation were formed all the men would go back tb their work. He repeated that he was no way antagonistic to Unionism fairly •ondooted. ' . ft* w “ . on!y ■ 8m “ 11 tßfuyat and he bad been waiting to hear

the views of tha larger employers. He considered the resolution vague, but he agreed with the principle that an employer Lad as much right to speak as well as the employee—there were rights on both sides. They must all deplore the position taken up by the working men today. He was quite prepared to support the principle that the capitalist had as much light to protect himself as the laborer bad, but he wanted to know what it was proposed the committee should do they they (wanted everything done fairly. He deprecated the practice - which had been instituted by the Union cf dictating to employers. He thought an employer should have the fright of saying what he would give—what was fair—and that the laborer should accept the work, or refuse. Mr Chambers said any further resolutions could be added to the first one.

Mr Bright considered the resolution was quite clear enough. The principle, he thought, they should uphold was the right of freedom on both sides. He then went into the subject of the cause of the strike, saying that it was not Unions that were to be objected to so much as the federation which they made to coerce employers. What the meeting should do, he considered, was to uphold the principle of having perfect freedom of action as to the employment of labor.

The resolution was carried unanimously. Mr Clark proposed, and Mr Evans seconded that a committee, to represent both town and country, be appointed, with power to add to their number, to give effect to the foregoing resolution :—Messrs Dobbie, C. D. Bennett, Bright, Murphy, C. Evans, J. T. Evans, Shelton, G. L. Sunderland, J. Orr, Woodbine-Johnson, C. Gray, W. K. Chambers, P. Barker, G. Seymour, Wi Pere, and E. F. Harris.

Mr Townley’s name was put in, on the proposition of Mr Harris, it being pointed out that that gentleman was a shipper of produce.

At a meeting of the Committee appointed at the general meeting it was resolved that an Association be formed to be called the Poverty Bay Farmers’ and Shippers’ Association, and the following resolution was adopted :—“This committee, while expressing regret at the necessity which has arisen for forming this Association, feels that, owing to the affiliation of Trades Unions generally it is necessary that employers of labor throughout Australia must organise, not only in self defence, but also in the interests of a very large number of working men who do not wish their present amicable relations with their employers to be disturbed by strikes when not interested in any dispute. The committee feel that farm laborers should not be liable to be called out by any Federated Labor Union. In dealing with this matter it has been decided that the members of this Association make do distinction in the employment of free or Union men Union men must accept the responsibility of declining to work with free labor. In furtherance of this object this committee communicate with other similar Associations iu New Zealand and Australia, and suggest that a meeting of delegates be held as may be decided upon, and rules framed for the guidance of the Association and its members."