LABOUR AND THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 12015, 17 October 1904, Page 8

LABOUR AND THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE.

.A VEILED THREAT.; ;; (SrECIAI. TO THE- "raKBS. r "j ; ; *■ WELLINGTON, Octiber ; 15.;f .. Some curious evidence., with regard -to the nrind of labour on tho question, of;preference to unionists was given.by 'Sir \Vi v T. Young, president of thefWellington Trad<® and Labour Council, /and chairman of the New Zealand Trades Council Exejmtive, before tho Labour Bills Comroitt<io of the Houssi wlten tho Industriali' Conciliation and Arbitration Act Am«ndineht Bill was . "Just give us : your reason for prefer*.. €nCL","Baid;the chairman., f ', . In reply ty this,. Mr\Young "stated that, the trade itnioniits of the cdooy yrero 'responsible" for; doing awaywith' tho/system of ftrike*. -Perfonally, '.he lyas' very that it had'been done away with/ arid he hoped that they-w/)uld;never work under that system again, but he wae afraiJ that if this very impwiant|»int {preference) >va» not; conceded to tho timonists before long, he" did not Iq>ow what would happen. ' \. / ; /•'■■ "Is that a threat?" inquired Mr-Hardy. No, said Mr Young, it was not a threat. Ho was only exprejsing the opinions that had been expressed by unionists at their meetings.. ' : V . - "But." ? «i3d Mr Hardy, "it is potsible that it may come about." "Id-is possible that it may como about," replied Mr Young, "ac it is getting a very strong point' M'itlt unionists." '. Beplying to further creations, he («"itncss) eaid that this qu€stk>n was getting warmer .and warmer every year. The preference which had been conceded by tho Court wan surrounded by so many conditions that the thing was not worth haying, and it was being very severely critici«:d by all unionu»(s. .'".''■ "What will be tho position?" he v,:\% ask?d. : There -was no telling what might happen. , replk'd Mr Young, who acUkd that he did not fay that a.« a threat. Unionislj, ho went on to say, felt that they were .lot being properly treated by the Act in that provision (preference) being absent. legislation "would be. of much more valiw were preference conceded. . "I think you raid that unle«» preference was conceded; it might not be desirable on the part, of many- unions to act under the legislation?" ■' . * ' . "It. might," was the reply. The is«uo was that- .if the • unions refneed to net unless' they, got' what they wanted, they 'were likely..to destroy the principle of the Arbitration Act. "