Should Compulsory Preference be given to Unionists?

Bruce Herald, Volume XXXXII, Issue 62, 6 August 1906, Page 3

Should Compulsory Preference be given to Unionists?

DEBATE AT THE MILTON MEN'S SOCIAL INSTITUTE.

AN EMPHATIC "NO" RETURNED

On Thursday night., in the Bruce County Hall, the postponed debate on the question " Should compulsory preference be given to Unionists," was optened. The opener of the debate was Mr J. P. Lynch, secretary of the local Laborers' Union, who spoke with force for the full extent of his allotted time—viz., 30 minutes. Mr W. Kirby, wool expert at the Bruce Woollen Mills, took the negative side, and gave solid reasoning and argument against compulsory preference. Dr D. Hastings Young, the President of the Institute, occupied the chair, and thefe were 25 persons present. 'After the preliminaries of the debate had been settled, the Chaij,. man called on Mr Lynch to speak to the question. THE AFFIRMATIVE SIDE.

Mr J. P. Lynch had a hearty reception on rising to speak, and went on to say that a great deal had been heard of late years regarding Unionism in labor circles. Prior to 1824 in the British dominions unions were forbidden —they were illegal. Now since that date they had gradually increased m strength; they were now legalised and were a power in the land. In a sonae their history had been a parallel of the history of the Christian Church; the more opposition they met with, the more they were persecuted, the better and stronger they flourished. A union was a body of men bnnded together for a definite purpose. A labor union had specific objects. AN INDUSTRIAL UNION'S OBJECTS were to counteract influences which might be working against its members' interests, to initiate reforms, to sweep away abuses, to enable members to fill their ppsitidus with comfort to themselves and advantage to their employers, to watch over and guard the interests of its members whenever they might, b,e assailed; and while doing this members must bear m mind that a Union was not formed to work in antagonism to their employers. On the contrary, they were required to show by their ability and strict attention to their duties the fact of their being members of a society was a guarantee to employers that in employing members of a union the employers were consulting their common interests. The adherence to these objects obviated any individual selfishness and disloyalty to one another in their common interests, and created a feeling of goodwill between employer and employed. That was the object of a union. Laborers had become sensible, both from observation and past experience that A NECESSITY HAD ARISEN FOE UNITING TOGETHER for support and defence, and were convinced of the grand truth that " union is strength." They wished to wield no weapon of violence or injustice in the defence of their rights, and all unions hoped the employers would see the necessity of acting %. that friendly spirit which should exist between employers and employed. " THE LABORER WAS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE," and the employer should acknowledge that truth. These aims and objects deserved support, and would lead to a better understanding between men and masters. Good masters were unfortunately not the rule, and it was to bring the bad in line with the good that a union was necessary. They were bound together to mutually benefit themselves and the masters, and the colony generally. That was the object of a union. Now ho came to the question of preference to unionists, and it was extremely hard where a union had accom plished a certain object which was for the benefit of every worker, that a worker who was not a member could come in and reap the benefit of the union's labar. Either those men should become unionists by right of fairness, and if not they should be compelled to join a union or else not get for their labor what the union, had been able to accomplish. A member of a unioD

WAS UNDER PAIN'S AND PENALTIES if ho struck work without cause. A nonunionist wa3 under no such penalty. Employers of uniont3ts had therefore greater security that they would get their work done. A strike was impossible where unionists were working and the rules were being observed. It was not fair that a non-uniQ.nist should get the same rate of wages as a unionist who had fought to receive that wage. Non-unionist were a drag on the wheels of progress. When employers got to understand what compulsory prefereno to unionists meant to they would find it of immense advantage to them. Thoy would get nothing but first-class men to select from. If compulsory preference were grunted, then good men ou'side tho unions, who from various causes were not' inclined to join, would b - brought into line. The Arbitration Courts had always given partial preference wh?n something in the age or character ot a workman was lacking. The order of preference at present in -vogue stated that, if, so lung as tho rules of the union shall permit, any person who is of good character and sober habits now employed in th£ trade iu an industrial district, and any person residing or who might hereafter reside in an industrial district, and who was of good character and sober h:ibi!s, should become a member of the union on payment of an entrance fee not exceeding f>3, and of subsequent contributions not exceeding 6d per (whether payable weekly or otherwise) per week. Upon a written application of the person so desiring to join, without ballot or other election, then in such case and thereafter

EMLOVERS SHALL EMPLOY MEMBERS OF THE UNION

equally qualified with non members to perform ihe par;icular work required to be done, and ready and willing to undertake it. The court 3 also allowed an employer to retain in his employ any journeyman who waß working with him prior to an award being made, though such journeyman was not a member of a union. This was where the unfairness cama in. These non-union men got the benefit of the work of the union. It was 3;i:d that when compulsory joining was irjrfis'.ed on that the unions would got too strong. That was so and they would also keep opji any but .competent meg, The

court said you musll^f LET ALL AND SUNDRY COMB IN who are of good character and pay the foe 3., It might be ; said there wa« incompetent men in unions, and why should o .hera incompetent be admitted. It was not wrong- to admit the incompetent, but there was a special proviso that old or infirm workutieh could be paid a special wage. The fiSced wage was lor the good man, the incompetent would not get it. The value of unionism was showp to the Wellington authorities over THE TRAMWAYS STRIKE. The authorities were big men and large employers q| labor, but when the representatives of the man put the case before them they saw at once the demand was just, and Ihey agreed to preference to unionists and gave the non unionists a month in winch to join.

IN MILTON tho Laborers' Union did not get preference because it was not a Btrong union. Its members were not like-' a Trades Union. Many would like to join it, but were afraid of the employers. They would give a donation to it, but not join it. Where preference was not given to unionists workers were dissatisfied. It was better co have them satisfied unionists than dissatisfied non-unionists. A union could get the concrete opinion ot its members.

A UNIONIST WAS BOUND BY AN AWARD when it was made. When a union was large and strong their references were always fair. A large union dealt coolly with great questions. In a recent case in Sydney an award wes made granting preference to unionists, though the employers' representative dissented, and the judge on tnai occasion said : —" The court cm only exercise jurisdiction on the application of employees when those employees aro incorporated as an industriar®union, and therefore, so fvr as they were concerned, it was the industrial union that gives life and existence to the Industrial Arbitration Act. Finding that collective bargaining by industrial unions is vital for tha oparation of the acs, the c >urt consitlors that where an industrial "union fairly 'and practically represents the industry, so far as the employees are concerned, preference should be given to unionists. In giving this preference hardships may be imposed on employers ; bat, on the other hand, if preference is not given, hardship and inconvenience may be imposed on unionists. Without this preference condition all encouragement to unions would disappear; also, tint practically, the Arbitration Act being one which is to encourage unionists to bring disputes to court rather than have recourse to strikes, there is the fuas that, within certain limits', unless preference is given, industrial unionism may become a •hingof the past." In that day's paper it was seen that the ju^g 1 ? ikt Christehurch had granted preference in two cases to unionists, and the employers had concurred. It was better for a body of employers to have to do with an organised body, and not with A DISORGANISED RABBLE. The old conditions prior to the Maritime Strike they did not want to see again. The main points were :—(1) That the

LAW ENFORCES THE PRINCIPLES OF CONCILI-

ATION. and arbitration for the settlement of industrial disputes, as embodied in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the only machinery available or possible for carrying out the law is unionism. It becomes imperative, therefore, that every worker, in any occupation in which a Union exists, be not only entitled to preference of employment, but employees should be compelled to employ those only who are law-abiding, and have become members ot Unions. (2) That it being the contention of interested parties that the minority ot the workers in this country are Unionists, while the majority of the workers are non-unionists, and LARGELY OPPOSED to the tactics and principles advocated by Unionists. Therefore it is in the best interests of all workers to become unionists, voluntarily if possible, and failing that, by compulsion, so that the majority of the workers should have the power to shape the future of unionism in this country in the interest of both worker and employer. (3) The Conciliation and Arbitration Act conferred no status on a workman who was not a member of a union, it was not intended that they should be represented, nor did it contemplate that a decision giving preference to unionists should effect any legal right of nonunionist workmen. The non-unionist had no legal right to demand employment, (Justice Williams, in the Appeal Court. May 10, 1900.) (4) That

WITHOUT COMPULSORY UNIONISM the unionists have been victimised by the money to carry out the provisions of the law. Tlaey have sacrificed themselves a3 competent workmen, to accept the minimum waga that the inferior non-unionidt has obtained by the unionist's efforts, and whilst the unionist has surrendered his right to enforce by the strike or otherwise, the higher wage he previously obtained, the non-unioni3t has annexed all the priviliges obtained by conciliation and arbitration, and the unionist receives the odium and censure, and is very often boycotted by the employers. (5) That the only two countries where compulsory unionism prevails —England and America—are THE MOST ADVANCED AND PROSPEROUS NATIONS ON EARTH. (6) ~The aims and objects of unionism are purely communal, and unionism seeks the betterment ot all, therefore it is entitled to the sympathy and support of the law. A great deal might be said on the political Bide of compulsory unionism. Modern legislation tended to make that compulsary which was desirable (for instances, half-holiday, early closing, health provisions, inspection ot food etc. and the provision for enforciug prohibition. The Legislature had in effect CLEARLY DECLARED )tJ«IONISM WAS DESIRABLE. and therefore, preference to unionists was utterly unjustifiable unless it was to be treated as (1) a reward to those who did what the law wanted, (join unions) or (2) a penalty on those who refrained from doing what the law wanted, (join unions) If, then, tho law so cloarly desired unionism, why did it not enforce the provisions $ His answer to that was that it would, an d

that ere very. long. Whether these gfeas tendencies would make for a higher or better social life,, time would prove.

the Progress was not so much the result of a process of reasoning as it was an evolution and development of human sentiment. Our sooial sympathies had long been growing keener, and more responsive, and public opinion was still advancing. The social problem was set now rather in terms of want, than (as of old) in terms of wealtn. We are awakening more and more to the truth that we are ail akin — brothers and sisters in this earthly pilgrimage, and recognising that the " State " as universal father should, (while requiring each to do something for his bread) see that each would receive according to his needs. That was the main current of our age, and it would carry us further and further away from the selfishness of individualism, to the altruism of some as yet

UNDEFINED FORM OF SOCIALISM. Compulsory unionism, or compulsory preference of employment to unionists, was justified by the numerical strength of the existing unions. In all occupations where unions are formed the unionists average 75 per cent of all the workers in such occupations who are eligible to become members of the unions. The department of Labour's returns give 65,369 non unionists employed, and 37,760 unionists, but this return, although it may be quite sufficient for departmental purposes, is practically useless as showing the proportion of unionists and non-unionists in those occupations whore unions are iormed, and who have the opportunity of becoming unionists. The 65,369 persons returned as non-unionists, include boys, girls, and women, in addition to all workers employed at occupations where no union exists, and who are all compulsory non- unionists. While only about 30 or 40 different occupations H;we unions, some of them being small industries, yet we find the satisfactory proof that 37,760 workers are voluntary members of tneir unions, and evidence can be produced to prove that less ttian 25 per cent are non-workers. Under these circumstances, unions are justified in demanding compulsory unionism, on the ground of justice, economy, and democratic government, and were it not for the systematic boycotting and intimidation of worker by the employers no compulsion would bo necessary to make every worker a unionist and a law abiding citizen. —(Applause).

THE NEGATIVE SIDE. Mr W. Kirby, on rising to reply was heartily received. He congratulated the Institute on the step it had taken in starting a debate and Mr Lynch on being the first one to speak under the auspices of the Institute. (Applause.) The opener being so intimately acquainted with the question of Unionism and preference might have been expected to make a strong appeal on behalf of the side he espoused. Mr Lynch from his position as the secretary of a Labor Union kept his mind and his brain well at work and should be well up in all the phases of the question. However, was one thing, Compulsory Preference to Unionists was quite another. With the idea of unionism tor a community they were all agreed. Their clubs, societies, and even their Institute was a union. These bodies represented the basis ot unionism, but, preference to unionists was quite outside the ideal of unionism as he- understood it. The objects sought were by combining to secure the betterment of its members, to cultivate a feeling of comradeship The chief feature of a union was that one man had not to fight alto-, gether for himself. Unionism was not only just and proper, but absolutely necessary for the body of the community. Unionism was all right,

COMPULSORY PREFERENCE WAS ALL WRONG. What effect would the latter have in the case of an employer who had had for 20 years men working for him regardless of hours or conditions so long as they were forwarding their employer's business, and thereby forwarding their own interest, if these men were superseded compulsory by men who had decided that only a fixed time and a fixed wage were the correct thing, and where the benefit for themselves or their employers did not come into the question. If employers could be diotatod to like that it would be humiliating ; tho great confidence between employer and employe would be broken up. If an employer had no choice in selecting the men he wanted to employ, and had to dispense with those in his service who had served him well, at the demand of a body of employees; then such conditions were monstrous. Of course if employers could not employ whom they chose they could close their factories, and who was to stop them ? In the

BRUCE WOOLLEN MlLLSthere was no preference to unionists; the employers paid each employe what was considered the worth of his or her services, and there was the fullest agreement between employer and employee; Every employer should have the right to alter the wage according to the wage-earning capacity of the employee. Compulsory preference meant compulsory labor uuionism, and the whole fabric of industrial unionism was built on the basis of making it compulsory to be a member or go without employment. That meant that advocates of compulsion must fight against thousands of employees as well as employers. The first effect of compulsion would be to put people out of work who were non-unionists. Suppose that preference was granted—the labor market would be no better. If all were in a union then the conditions would be the same as before. That looked all right, but the fact was that the unions would get so strong that they would block out all the weak and how were they to get employment. A man expelled from a uuion would starve; he could not get work, and would not be allowed to work. A FEELING OF ANTAGONISM AND DISTRUST would be created. Irritation would exist in any body who were forced to do things against their will, such as employing men whom they did not want. There was the case at the Kaitangata mine not long ago. Because the directors would not sack two men who were nonunionists the miners went on stritee. Th 6 company stuck to the two men and wopld

not be coerced as to whom they should employ, and filled the mine, with nonunion men, and the s i k:rs had to go elsewhere. The direo ors acted on the natural impulse thai they would not be dictated to as to whom they should employ. "Workers would also object to be driven into joining a union. Employers could resent interference even to the extent of closing their mines or factories, and then on whom Would the burden fall —on tne workers themselves. In the Kaitangata case men wanted to go back to work, but their advisers—who did nbt woik—would not let them, but afterwards the men went to work? union or nonunion, when they could get the chance. It would be A MOST RETROGRADE STEP to adopt compulsory preference to unionists: This matter was one for' which the leaders of labor were striving eagerly, an,d in their eagertiesa they Were prep ned to wreck anything which stood in their way. The following was a samp'o of what they endeavored to do. A circular was sent out from the Trades and Labor Oouncil in November, 1905, as follows : —",lu accordance with resolution passed at the 1904 Conference of Trades Councils; I have the honour to forward to you the names of those members of Parliament who voted against the bill introduced by Mr J. P. Arnold, providing for compulsory preference to unionists. I trust you will take immediate steps to have the action of these members brought under the notice of all unionists in your electorate. The following is the resolution referred to : —" That this conference urges all unionists constituents of members of Parliament who voted against preference of employment to unionists last session to vole against . such members at the next election, and that the names of the said members be circulated throughout New Zealand by the executive.' " The names of the members attached to the letter are:—J. G. W. Aitken, H. D. Bedford, J. Bennet, J. Bollard, Hon. J. Carroll, J. Duthie, W. H. Field, F. R. C. Flatman, A.'L. D. Fraser, W. Fraser, Hall, C. A. C. Hardy, R. M. Houston, A. L. Herdman, W. H. Herries, A. W. Hogg, W. T. Jennings, A. Kidd, M. M. Kirkbridge, F. W. Lang, F. Lawry, F. Y. Lethbridge, C. E. Major, F. Mander, WF. Masse,y, Hon. J. WGowan, R. M'Nab, Hon. C. H Mills, J. O'Meara, D. Reid, A. E. Remington, R. H. Rhodes, Sir W. R. Russell, Kt., A. W. Rutherford, W. Symes, J. C. Thomson, J. W. Thomson, J. Vile, Hon. Sir J. G. Ward, A. D. Willis, G. Witty, J. Allen, C. Lewis, Hon. T. Y. Duncan, T. MacKenzie.

. That was the aim of the labor leaders : to ge,t everyone to vote against every memcar irrespective of anything else, who would not support their pet idea. All other conaiderations vamahed. A ministry was to be wrecked, 45 msmbers were to be thrown out, because th9y did not support what they conceived would not; be in the interests of the employer orj employed. Mr James Allen was to be 1 ) thrown out —(A Voice : " They didn't manage it though, and laughter.) It was not the workers who Were calling out for preference ; it was the agitators. Mr Kirby quoted from an authority to show that the steps taken to secure compulsory preference were too advanced and altogether outside the objects of what unionism Btood for.

WHAT WOULD THE LABOR EXECUTIVES DO if their idea was carried out ? Everyone would be a unionist. There would be no need of executive officers. What would they do ? —(A voice : " Start them to work.") Unless they went rabbiting they would not be able to live. Why was this step towards preference not taken in other countries ?—(Mr Lynch: "It is.") Well, the speaker would like to have very definite proof of it. Farmers' unions were not on the same basis as labor unions. In short, a policy of preference to unionists was a selfish, narrow-minded -one, and should not exist even m an I uncivilised country. The leaderfi of labor would have their thumbs on the men of enterprise; the employer and his work would be but a secondary consideration. Workers would be in a worse rather than a better position. |lt was retrogade. it would lead to unions I being of the nature oi secret societies. Where men were reasonable and employers fair the conditions would be as they were locally. Employees would be agreeable and able to step out and meet their employers. Preference was not practicable, worker and master should be left alone in this land of liberty and freedom, Class would be set against | class. It was neither expedient nor practical; a feeling of irritation, an- | tagonism, and distrust would arise. It would be a direct blow to the employers freedom of choice, and an injustice to many employees. The tendency of preference would lead to the springs of enterprise being closed up and the burden would be on the shoulders of those least able to bear it.—(Loud applause.) Mr J. B. M'Clymont thought the unions had not done much for New Zealand. The labor legislation of the colony was very advanced no doubt, but the question was whether it was doing her much good as a competitor in the manufacturing line with other countries where lower wages were paid in comparison to those paid in this colony. Mr Lynch's views on unionism were all right, but when he came to compulsory preference to unionists he was off the rails.

Mr Inglia thought labor unions had not done much for the colony. If, as Mr Lynch said, the employers were in favor of compulsory preference to unionists, let tho unions wait until the employers asked for it. Mr Parkinson thought every member should speak to the question. There would be no preference if £.ll were compelled to join a union. If unions had the power to exclude what were those going to do who were refused admission. Dr Young thought employers should not be dictated to. He was a democrat, but tor the»democracy to decide whom he should employ was too much for him to chew. Mr Lynch in reply said an employer had control ot his factory so long as he complied with the law of the land. There was preference even in the Farmers' Unions. One down south had a vet who attended the sick animals of the members for nothing; outsiders paid 10s 6d. Lawyers were a close corporation. You had to pass an examination and be admitted. Anyone could not appear in court. You had to close your shops on the regular half holiday. It was the law

of the land. Lots of instances of com* pulsion could be given which were accep* led without complaint.' An employer should not have the right to pay what wages he liked. That led to sweating. Men and women had worked 112 hours a week for fa 6d. The Arbitration Aot was not worth the paper it was printed on if the unionist did not have preference. The Hon. W. P, Reeves brought it in originally" s !s a measure "to encourage the formation of industrial unions." The position for the worker to-day was better for the labor legislation which had been passed; unionists could not strike. In the case of the Newcastle coal strike the miners lost £172,000 ih wages, and the mine owners lost £500,000 and the trade as well, through strikes. As to labor leaders whom it was Baid did not work —what about J. T. Paul, Robert Breen, J. A. Miller, M.H.R., they all worked hard. The Australian Workers' Union had a membership' of 27,000, and had 11 members in the State Parliament and seven in the Federal, and all were men who toiled. Unionism was a protection for the employee, and its aim was to make all employers treat their men fairly. On a vote being taken ten voted for Mr Kirby's side and four for Mr Lynch's. A number did not vote either way.