The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1911. AN IMPUDENT DEMAND.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1232, 14 September 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1911. AN IMPUDENT DEMAND.

Those good people who have forgotten, or who have never properly realised, hpw largely intolerance arid tyranny direct the policy of the agitator in trade unionism in this country will do well to give some attention to a question by Me. M'Laren that the Minister for Labour answered yesterday. Inspircd,_ no doubt, by the failure of a minority .of warehouse employees to coerce the unwilling majority into joining a union' and making war upon their employers, Me. M'Laeen asked tho Minister whether there was any provision of the Arbitration Act which would "prevent a body of workers in any industry from acting in collusion with their employers towards the forming and registering of a bogus union under the Act in order to prevent other workers in the industry from availing themselves of the benefit of tho Act." Mr. M'Laeen knows what the facts arc; this is only his way of announcing his objection to an Act which, with all its imperfections, does not yet place every worker at tho mercy of the unionist agitator. 'Ifc is significant of the audacity of a section of the leaders of trade unionism that one of their number should in this manner, use such terms as "bogus" and "collusion" even he has not the shadow of any evidence to justify his language. He knows perfectly well, and did not require Mil. Millar to point out that "no such cases [as that suggested] have been experienced," and that "thfro is no provision restricting the freedom of any person's in registering a union under the Act, provided the rules of such union are in accordance therewith." Me. M'Laiien knows all this; what then can bo his purpose in.creating a wrong impression prejudicial to those workers who are disinclined to become the tools of a section of the Trades Council'! Docs lie profess to consider it in the interests, of industry to thus stir up strife and illfeeling? . Mr. M'Laben's action as stated , was bad enough, but much worre was

the cool proposal of the member for Wellington East that the Act should be, so amended that "on a petition of one-tenth of the members of a workers' union covering claims for improved conditions of cmplovment, the union will be required to file such claims as a dispute, or part of a dispute, under tho Act." What docs this proposal amount to! Simply this: that if in any- union 90 per cent of tho members are quite satisfied with tho conditions of employment, they can be forced by tho remaining 10 per cent into a fight which they do not desire and which they may have the best reasons for wishing to avoid. Not only may the whole of the men engaged in an industry thus be thrown into needles? antagonism with their employers through the action of an absurdly small minority; but there is every probability of widespread unrest being caused by such action being even possible. It is simply astounding that in the present state of industry in New Zealand, when those who might be expected to open up new industries or expand existing undertakings are so ' chary of risking their capital in so doing, men can bo found who in the guise of Labour leaders, professing the desire to help their fellows should throw further discouragement in the wav of industrial enterprise and block tho opening-up of fresh avenues of employment. We all know that the leaders of trade unionism are quite ready to assert the right of a unionist minority to tyrannise over the non-unionist majority, yet we had imagined that trade unionism insisted that inside a union tho majority should rule. But it seems that we have been mistaken, and that • men like Mr. M-'Lareu arc willing to allow a minority of unionists to coerce a majority of unionists when the minority_ is for harassing the employers and stirring up that strife which it is the personal interest of the Labour agitator to stir up. It would appear that the leaders of organised Labour are growing anxious lest the trade of quarrelling should languish to the point of threatening their bread and butter. In most unions one can always rely upon finding a small minority of irresponsible persons—usually single men—ready to make trouble and Mr. M'Lahen wishes that this element shall be empowered to prevent the peaceful majority in the union from going contentedly about their work.. It will be a farce for Mr. M'Laren to talk of majority rule any more after this. His proposal is quite the most extraordinarily impudent that we have heard of for some time. We aro not surprised that Mr. Millar shrank from accepting the suggestion.