PREFERENCE FOR UNIONISTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 464, 24 March 1909, Page 9

PREFERENCE FOR UNIONISTS.

' TO THE'' EDITOIi. ' ■■'■■'■■ ■ S>r,—The recent stateinonts of tho Presi dent of tho Arbitration Court, jXo Sim to tho effect that non-unionistserelK who were toe mean to pay for benefits Peeved and that employers should save thomeelvcs all worry and trouble m connection with nrbi ~r n t 'rrW ards, b y-»'»«"« .to. employ hoik unionists, aro so extraordinary nud mis. I?,in n^? 4,i < '- Wa n™ nt tbe stron S«t Protests against them. Being a non-unionist working man myself, sir, I strongly resent Judge buns slur that 1 am too mean to join a union. I am a non-unionist upon principe, being a. free man in a free community, and,will continue no until Inm driven from tiie country. • I freely concede tho right to other workers of forming themselves into unions,.'but their impudent attempt to coerce Other free tnen'ihto their raiike is a gross violation ""of individual rights, and cannot bo allowed lo stand. iTiere is no moro warrant for State interference into the sphere of industry than , thero is in tho sphere of religion, art, or science. A man m*y as well bo forced to become a vegetarian- or .«. Christian scientist as , to bocomo a .uniohist. , ..-.■.. ~.:,, • ... ~_ .•„ o\Aa jfp.r, : ,,tho..benefits (?) which Judge-Sim-atatw thfev workers' have rnchiWd from;-' the' Acty 'I am--entirely sceptical about-them. My own.wages for years have,been higher than tho awards, and I claim, sir, that' without , the .Arbitration Act they would have been higher; owing to tho increased unending-poirer, they would have .had. If . the relieved benefit.) received 'are duo to Stat« interference with tho laws of supply., nnd demand-(as undoubtedly tho Arbitration' Act is simply a clumsy attempt at this), then aro .these benefits but another namo lor' charity,'.and. no- self-respecting, man wants that. 'In '.studying tho awards for years;past) I have failed to sec .upon', what principle, or. want of'. principle, tho awards have been made'.' It is not tho living wago standard, .or elso why have different, awards. Nor is it a standard based upon what (a trade can' pay,' , for that_ is impracticable. It is not'oven a standard into which the relative skill required. is observed, for some trades 'are receiving less than- others, although, equally or more skilled. Here lot me point.out,' sir, a truth often overlooked. ■No a priori conclusions can bo formed as to the respective value ,of different kinds ' of work, whether skilled or unskilled. If any skilled trade is overstocked with labour, wiigoa :in that trade must and should-fall, otherwise there is no incentive for labour to leave o failing industry. On tho other hand, if-tbere is a demand, for navvies, wages must and Bhould riso, even abovo skilled lnbour. and thus a balance is preserved. Tho truth is, sir, the Arbitration Court has never followed any standard, bub hup merely codified the existing standard of wages in the various trades, giving a few shillings here and there to inferior workmen, at the expense of tho more competent, which paltry increases have been moro than swallowed up in union exactions and nir, creased cost of living. , .' The benefits which Judge Sim informed us tho workers ' were receiving from tho Act turns out upon analysis to be- purely )llusionary, 1 but on the other side of the ledger what evils stand to its credit or discredit I To say nothing of the enormous cost involved' in the construction and. annual insiintcnmico of such a cumbrous piece of machinery, wn have to reckon the loss or , . time and' money in hauling witnesses, workers,'arid employers before the dread tribunal, the fines and burdens laid upon industry generally, and, what .cannot be mwis- • ured "in money, the worry, anxiety, feeling of insecurity, r.nd useless irritation tint lias been engendered by the workings of this iniquitous. Act. It is no exaggeration, sir, to sav that the Act has never justified iU , existence, and at no time has it ever been productive of mere good than harm. _ _ 'It is''curious,' as well as instructive, _ to note the connection between' the Arbitration Act and our protective tariff system, and the futility of cither or both toßcther to raise wages.-' Years ap;o. when tho Arbitration Act was in its infancy, but when our protective tariff was well established, tho woolienbnd boot, industries, although protected from 25 to .35 per cent, ad valorem, were the -worst paid industries in the country, and to-day,' despite the Arbitration Act and an increase'in the tariff, they aro still the worst paid. The'fact remains, sir, that the frcetnlde industries of this Dominion are paving the best .wagon, and, besides, are shouldering the heavy burdens placed upon thorn bvoiir protective tariff and the Arbitration "Act. Considerations of your space prevent" mv- further encroachment upon it. but I trust, Fir.: that the deficiencies of this letter will be more than remedied by your able editorial pen. and that it will not rest until both.the Arbitration Act andtho odious preference clause are expunged from our statutes.—l am, etc., ■ ■-•'• NON-UNIONIST. March 23.