TRADES UNIONISM AND THE GREAT STRIKE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5966, 20 October 1890, Page 3

TRADES UNIONISM AND THE GREAT STRIKE.

Mr Henry Vat-ley has written a long C'lntuunicatiou on thi* subject to the Melbourne Age. Wo quote the following passages :-- That working men may combine for purposes of mutual protection and dofence I would b« the last to deny, but that such unionism should extend so as to embrace and comprehend within itself the whole or even a large majority of the skilled workmen, laborers, or servants of a city, colony, or country, I deprecate in tho strongest terms, and would expose ia every legitimate and practicable way. So long

as trades unionism simply meant a combination of workers, banded together for purposes of defence and protection, it commanded and deserved the sympathy and support of society and the State. By this legitimate combination many of the scandalous monopolies of tho capitalists and landlords in the old country have been successfully .met and overthrown. Ido not, therefore, wonder that the trades unionists, in view of the great successes which have been achieved in tho past, make the maintenance of the unionist idea (the right to combine) the crux of the whole position. But just hereis the danger which now threatens. Personal liberty to the workman, the right to sell his labor where and at what price he chooses, liberty to tho individual employer to engage whom ho pleases, and (within the law) that thoy respectively shall have the right to discharge or to leave employment; theso inalienable rights of the individual must be maintained by the State, and tho moro resolutely because trades unionism as a monopoly is already persecuting and defaming in the labor market tho non-unionist. This gross offence against individual freedom aud liberty is abominable. The State ie bound to insist upon personal liberty and freedom of contract. .11 trade associations whose >te plus ultra is designed to comprehend all workmen and iv this way compass the overthrow of the personal liberty of tbo individual worker in the labor market, is essentially lawless, despotic, and unjust. In regard to the skilled workmen of the Australian colonies, can it be shown that theso aro suffering either opp-ession or wrong? Are there ten skilled artisans, e.g., in tho whole of Melbourne to-day who could prove that they aro being unjustly dealt with in regard either to wages or timeP I gravely ! question it, and I am surprised that for luo real grievance this unjustifiable strike ' has taken place It is simply appalling to think that such a monopoly would possess the power to plunge into commercial distress and into tho direst social poverty and discomfort whole cities, colonies and communities. I positively object to the possession of any such power being in the hands of any man or any associated body of men. This would not bo civilisation, but an organised and tyrannical despotism. In all manly sincerity lot mo say to the trades unionist, be careful not to interfere with tho liberty of your fellow-workmen. First, because you have no right to do it. The bare idea of giving opprobrious names, such as " blacklegs," &0., to workmen who decline to join your union. How would you like that term applied to yourselves ? .Remember always that your union rules are n-.>t law. and may bo directly antagonistic to the law. Your fellow-workmen are not to be bound by your rules or by-laws. Perhaps nothing more contemptible can be cited in the tolerated ethic*- of trades unionism than the unjust and specious casuistry which says to the employer, "Ob, no. wo don't, deny to you tho liberty to employ vvh-.ui y*'U please, but wo claim tho liberty to refit... to work with nonunionists." There is neither liberty nor nyht in tho positijii taken by tho unionist wh.-n li.. thus .-pea.-, or acts. It is a mi. i-rablc pie. Eof special pleading. Lib rty the rif/ht. to act as you please, provi-K-.i .-Iways y«\: p'e.tse to do that

which is ic.t injurious to another's interest. l"ou have no right (according to

law) to refuse to work side by side with a man because ho is :*. non-unionist I admit you huiv the power, but, it is power used in -lir.ct vio'ntion of right and law. As you were free to join tha trades union, of which you are a member, other workmen aro -quaily free to decline to join. The workman who is a non-unionist has precisely tho samo right to work where you arc as your ft-'U-ow-unionist has. The fact that a" man is a m-.mbt.i- of a trades union cannot give him the riuht to bin 'er, impair, or prevent the employment of a man who is a non-unionist, .-uch tactics arc unmanly, unjust, and corrupt. They are altogether wrong, and trades uniuuisni can never make that which is wrong to be right.