THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1890.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8364, 18 September 1890, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1890.

By the strikes in England, in Australia, and in New Zealand it is now seen what is the great point in the contention. It is quite obvious that all these allied strikes in occupations differing entirely from each other cannot be upon questions of wages or hours, because these are diverse enough in the various quarters of the globe. To sco the point in dispute clearly is the first step towards a settlement of a state of affairs which threatens the whole structure of society in Anglo-Saxon communities. The speakers on behalf of the unions say that what is at stake is "the right to combine." They are doubtless sincere in so speaking, but it is obvious on a moment's reflection that what they are asserting is not correct. What employers and the general ' public are resisting is not the right to combine on the part of workmen, but the terms made by the combinations and sought to be enforced on the employers, terms which he has had no hand in framing, and which he is asked to assent to on the penalty of a strike in case of re- i fusal. What the directors of the unions are striving for is a point that can never in the nature of things be conceded—that is, the right of combinations of workmen to frame certain rules and regulations as to hours of labour, rates of pay, and as to who the employer shall be permitted to take into his service, and then to compel the employer to carry on business in conformity with these rules which he has had no part in making. We do not think there can be any doubt that the above is a correct statement of the case, and it must be assented to as accurate by any candid unionist. The unions have framed their rules of themselves. They have asked the assent of no body of employers, or of any person acting on behalf of the employers. Now, we would put it to the men if this can really be called fair dealing. Here is a matter in which both parties are concerned, and which should be the subject of mutual agreement. It involves the whole conditions on which work is carried on. And yet the unions insist that it is fair and right that these rules that they have made should be forced on persons who have not been consulted in the making of them.

Before considering some of the rules of the unions to show that it is impossible they can be assented to, it may be worth while to raise the question for the consideration of members of these bodies, whether too much power is not given up by the individual to the union —whether the member does not sacrifice powers which each man should hold in his own hand, and for his own individual decision 1 Each union seems to be governed by a very small number of individuals, and these as a rule not the best men of their class. At all events, they are not, generally speaking, the most capable workmen, or the most steady, industrious, and trustworthy. They distinguish themselves most in talk. Then the officers of each' union give up their power in the most important of all their functions to some central body; and then it comes to this that a strike, a step of momentous importance, that may be the ruin and destruction of many, is determined.on by one or two individuals. And yet the men follow like sheep, each one being afraid that somebody else will call him a " blackleg." The men in many cases seem to have struck work out of sheer moral cowardice. If unions are to be useful to working men, and not injurious, then there must be some other method of government. Some arrangement must be made by which when a question of strike arises the men who are affected, who have to throw up their employment, and to render their families destitute, shall have the power to decide, at all events by a majority, under the ballot. This, however, is mainly a matter for the men themselves. But we think it must be evident to them that the recent

strikes show that some such reform in the working of the unions is necessary. If it is not made then the men have j come under a tyranny to which all : political tyranny that their forefathers endured was a trifle. It is useless for them to talk of liberty and freedom while they submit to a despotism like this. We have lately had scores of men out on strike who said that the act of calling them out was a blunder. Such a conviction was a clear acknowledgment that they were in the wrong in coming out, and yet they go on struggling for victory. Trades unions are now recognised in England, and each year an officer of the Government reports on them to the Imperial Parliament. They appear, however, in England to be all, or nearly all, benefit societies, and to make allowances in case of sickness or accident, as well as when out of work. But the unions at home, as well as those in the colonies, are asserting the principle, that no employer shall be allowed to employ a man who is not a member of the union. As the Times says, in referring to the Cardiff strike, this claim at once " puts the strikers beyond the pale of sympathy." We have before us a copy of the rules and by-laws of the Auckland Federated Butchers Union. It appears to be composed of rules adapted to the trade, and of others of a general nature common, we presume, to all the federated unions. We will deal mainly with the latter division. Rule sis as follows :— The entrance fee shall be 2s 6d per member, up to and including the 10th day of July. 1890, from which date it shall be 5s up to and including the 10th day of September, 1890, and from that date henceforth the entrance fee shall be £2 2b." There would not be much objection to such a rule if it were left optional to any member of the trade to join the society or not, as he chooses, but as will be seen, it is not so. A man is not allowed to work at his trade unless he is a member of the union, and he may or may not be admitted just as the members may determine. Rule 18 is as follows :—

Candidates for membership must be proposed and seconded at one meeting by two members. The proposer and seconder shall at all times be held responsible for the character of the proponent, and his proposer shall, before proposing him, hand to the secretary his entrance fee, (which, in the event of his being rejected, shall be returned.) He shall be ballotted for at the following meeting, and if elected, shall be admitted a member forthwith. But the union shall have the power to reject any candidate who has shown any undue or bitter opposition to our union, while he has had previously the opportunity of enjoying all its privileges. Any member wilfully persisting in proposing any such candidate, or knowingly withholding such information with reference to his character as might exclude him, or in any way aiding in the admission of an undesirable member, shall be fined 'is 6d for the first offence, 7s 6d for the second, with the penalty of suspension for three months, and for a third offence he shall be entirely expelled. It is quite evident that this rule has been framed for the purpose of punishing those who do not at once come into the union, and who might at first impair its power. The union looks forward to victory in a struggle, and therefore makes full provision to take vengeance on those who may have attempted to obstruct. The 19th rule provides that the voting shall be by ballot, and that one black ball for every fifteen white balls shall declare the candidate rejected. He cannot be nominated again for six months, and should he be then rejected cannot be again proposed. And then it is added :— "And it shall be the duty of our secretary to at once notify the secretaries of all kindred unions in the colonies of the candidate's name in full, and the circumstances under which his rejection has occurred." Thus, the union takes upon itself to deprive a man, perhaps for no good reason, c.f the power of earning his own livelihood, not only in this locality, but in any occupation whatever all over the colonies. It seems to us that this is very harsh and tyrannical, and ought not to be sanctioned. The 35th rule is :— No union man shall work with a non-union man. Neither shall a member work for any master butcher who opposes our union, and all members of this union shall refuse to work for any master butcher who cuts the price of meat, and endeavours to injure his fellow master butchers. This is a double-edged rule. The masters cannot engage any man who is not a member of the union, but, at the same time, the unionists pledge themselves not to work for any master who sells meat at a less price than the. Master Butchers' Union has agreed upon. It seems to us that in this rule there is something very much against the public interest. The rules then go on to say that if any employer shall employ nonunion men, and refuse to discharge them, a strike shall be ordeied. The 40th rule is:—

The whole of the members of this union shall strike in a decided manner, with dogged determination, and unwavering principle, and use every available means of subduing any master butcher who will not recognise the Master Butchers' Association rules, but who persists in violating, and sets at defiance the same.

It would .appear from these rules that if the union and the masters can keep up an arrangement between them, they can manage to scientifically bleed the public. But some of the union rules are of such a nature that we should think the masters could hardly bow themselves to submit to. As for those members of the community who are without the circles of unionism, apparently they are not recognised as having anything to say at all. We do not look at this matter at present from an employer's standpoint. Hitherto it has mostly been dealt with from the point of view of the employers or the employe?. But it seems to us that the general publicevery person who is not in the sacred circle of a unionhas got vital interests at stake. And who is to safeguard these interests