Unions and Their Funds.

Press, Volume L, Issue 15022, 17 July 1914, Page 6

Unions and Their Funds.

The discussion in the House of Representatives on the question whewier trado unions should have the power to spend their funds on political purposes revealed in the "Liberals" a shocking amount of either disingenuousness or ignorance. Sir Joseph Ward, who, of course, was chiefly animated by apxiety to give tho Syndicalists a fresh proof of h_ sympathy, was particularly unhappy i.i the arguments by which he .ought to support the Syndicalist demand. "If," ho said, "a majority is not allowed to " make uso of its funds by way of ex? " penditure then clearly you are going '•to tap tho foundations of organised " trade unionism in this country. . . If "it is right that a minority should " frustrate the will of the.major- * ity, then how can an ordinary com- " pany carry on its business? . . . 1 "say if the same law were applied to " the ordinary companies of New Zea- ' land there is no public company that "could carry on its affairs." The uso of this supposed 'analogy between a trade union and a private-company is very unfortunate, for it really brings to light the fundamental characteristic of trade unionism and-the fundamental difference between a trade union and;a free association of individuals. In tho first place, the restrictions placed upon trade unions are not restrictions in the ordinary sense, but limitations set ■ to the unparalleled privileges conferred upon unions by the law—privileges enjoyed by no private company nor any other association of people. In the second place, there is a world of difference between a private shareholder and a unionist. Should a company spend its money in a way which is disapproved by a shareholder, that shareholder can realise his holding and transfer his interest to any one of an almost infinite number of other companies, and do so without a penn'orth of loss,-moral or material. But what is the case of the unionist- who might object to the spending of his union's funds on purposes to which ho has a strong social, political, moral, and even religious repugnance? He cannot withdraw and' join another union. He is quite ' helpless. Ho must- endure the injustice or starve, or seek work at some unskilled trade, his own trade being closed to him. Equally absurd was the attempt of Mr Isitt to- suggest that there is no difference between a trade unionist on one band and a Wesleyan or a member of the Sports Protection Association on the other. But Mr Isitt spared the House and the public tho necessity of thinking him sincere. Who can tnink sincere a member who actually says that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law as it existed long before Mr Massey came into office is "a " Tory move engineered for the express " purpose of paralysing the Labour or- •' ganisations in regard to political ac"tion." It is eloquent of tho effect of his political associates upon the member for Christchurch North that it no longer appears shocking to his friends that he should make statements so untruo and absurd. When Mr McCombs said that "Parliament ought to guaran- '•' tee to workers the right of free asso- " ciation," ho was advocating, not (as ho imagined ho waa) the freedom of trado unions to tyrannise to the fullest extent over individuals, but the abolition of all the privileges which make trade unionism in this country tho exact opposite of free association. If men could join and quit unions without loss or inconvenience there -would be no objection to allowing union, to spend their money as they please. But where working men enjoy no such freedom some restriction must £>© placed upon the powers of the dominant majority in a union. Nowadays the unions, as Mr Vcitch mentioned, are not exclusively trade organisations. But they secured their privileges as trade organisations, and they would certainly never have been granted these privileges as

political societies. That tney have become rather political than industrial associations should direct, not tho enlargement of their privileges and the extension of their power to suppress individual rights, but the reduction of thoso privileges towards what would b© conceded to other political bodies. It might be provided, of course, that unions should have power to establis-h special funds for special purposes, to which only those need contribute who approved of those purposes. This, would be free from -ome of the most objectionable of the features of the proposal of the Syndicalists and Sir J. G. Ward, but it would still have some objectionable features. For the present, however,it; is sufficient to note that the Leader 01 the Opposition and his Red red. friends neither know nor care anything about the fact that their demand is grossly unjust and cannot without serious wrong be conceded until the trade unions, by giving up their privileges, place themselves ou the same tooting as such voluntary associations as the companies, churches, and clubs used in the "Liberal" argument?.