Compulsory Unionism

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 68, 14 December 1931, Page 13

Compulsory Unionism

Sir, —I would like to reply to the letter appearing in to-day’s “Dominion” above the nom-de-plume “Stringer,” and having reference to compulsory unionism. This correspondent, sir. is a specimen of distorted present day industrial and political intellect —a mind devoid of logical balance and destitute of courage even to sign his own name. From behind a nom-de-plume he fires blank statements. thinking them deadly shots, while in point of fact upon himself each shot has a rebounding barrel bursting effect. This correspondent has a grudge against the Waterside Workers’ Union, or he is a tool in the hands of the enemies of labour. I make no pretence to know anything of the financial transactions of any union, and I defy “Stringer,” unless he is , a financial member of the Waterside Work- ' ers’ Union, to know anything either, - Balance-sheets and statements of accounts are issued, read, and passed, and all expenditure controlled by a ment committee, and passed for payment. Ignorance abandons one error to take up . another, and “Stringer,” true to false; principles and practice, has done likewise. After soaring on the wings of # wild imagination into the realms of fictitious.' figures of trade union expenditure, he suddenly drops down to the smoky plains , of trade union legislation and drops a smoke bomb on the trade union. secre-' taries. He imagines that trade union secretaries are entrenched behind a paltry preference clause. I wonder if “Stringer • ever thought of how trade union secretaries exist or continue to have their being in countries where no I.C. and A. Act or preference clause operates or ever have operated. In Britain during the last od years, by the process of monthly showcards or showing of financial medals, workers in all industries were compelled to be members of trade unions, and where employers objected to dismiss workers who were found not to be members of the union, the strike method was immediately put into operation. More working days have been lost in Britain in compelling men to be unionist than in all other.strikes put together. In America the Iron Tin and Steel Workers Union, the , Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the . Garment Workers’ Union, and the miners’ unions hare by sheer force ot strikes compulsorily built up their most powerful present-day organisations In • 1920 one of these strikes cost the U.S.A, five hundred million dollars. The loss of days, dollars, and even lives, marks the progress of trade unionism in America, and when in this country legal preference to trade unionists is abolished in accordance with the fallacious dictates of “Stringer” and others of the same mental calibre, the trade union movement will likewise be driven to take arms, and by opposing, end the opposition. The upward and onward march of the trade union movement since the passing into law in Britain in 1816-91 of Tlhe Trade Union Acts,” seems to be at present ignored or conveniently forgotten by some people in this Dominion. They seem to think that the abolition of the Industrial and Conciliation Arbitration Act would be a godsend. Pitiable is the plight of those whom history and experience. instead of illuminating the mind, has added stupidity to ignorance. We live in an age of extreme organisation, industrial and political, local and international, and preference must be given to that kind of combination within the confines of law. to that of revolutionary mob law. If ever the trade union movement of this country will be pushed into the revolutionary pass advocated by “Stringer." a now policy of action will be imperative, and the national organisation of the workers for direct action will be abso lutelv necessary—l am. etc., JOHN TUCKER. Wellington. -December 8.