SATURDAY. APRIL 14, 1894. TRADE UNIONISM AND CO-OPERATION.

Evening Post, Volume XLVII, Issue 88, 14 April 1894, Page 2

SATURDAY. APRIL 14, 1894. TRADE UNIONISM AND CO-OPERA-TION.

Tin. Trades and Labour Councils and Conferences approvo, we believe, of the Government system of co-operative public works. It would be interesting to know on what principlo they do this, for to the ordinary observer the system would appear to be based on principles altogether opposed to those which Trades Unions profess and constantly seo'c to inculcate in other matters. The Unions will not permit privato employorß and contractors to differentiate in regard to the wages they pay. Every man employed must rocoivo the same, the standard, rate of wages for the work he is employed on, whether ho bo individually worth more or less^ The_Labour organisations insist that public bodies in contracting shall insist that standard wages be paid to all the workers employed, and any system of overtime is strongly protested against as tending to reduce the number of workers for whom employment can be found. Now, tho Government co - operative system of works runs oounter to evfljy— *>ne of these principles. Its primary object and effect is to abolish all uniformity ot wage and to differentiate between the workers employed The good, capable, and industrious workman is enabled under it to earn more than tbe unskilful, or incapable, or lazy workman, it ia tho boast of the Government — an untrntliful one, we are convinced, or the men would have chucked up the work long ago that tho average earnings aro less than the ordinary rate of wages for similar work. If this be true, then the Government is undoubtedly by ita co-operativo system hfilping to bring down the general rato of wnges. Under the co-operative system ono mnn may only earn <Ss or 5s a day, while another may earn 8s or 10s at tho same work. We see no reason to objoct to this ; indeed, it ia right and proper, but is it consistent with Trade Union pr'noiplesf Then again, the co operative work, boing really v system of sab-cont. acting or piecewoik, offerß eye y inducement to the men employed on it to break through tho eight hours day rulo, aud to work overtime, fo as to earn more money. 1b this consistent with Trade Union principles? Does it not tend to lessen the demand for labour, and to give those who are employed an unfair advantage over those who are not? We really cannot understand why tho trades organisations should not only connive at but approve the adoption by the Government of a system of work which they would not for a moment permit to be adopted by any privato employer or contractor. The Government system purports to be based ttpou tho principle of paying each man according to tho value of the work ho docs, of getting him to woik at a rato of pay considerably below the cv rent rate for Buch work, and inducing him to work long hours in tho hope of earning more money. It iv a sy&tom which in< ludes the worst evils of sub-contracting, save only the question of security for the money earned, and it is not altogether free from a suspicion oi being designed to cover or enconragn something in tho nature of sweating. The wholo system is eminently calculated to undermine the foundations on which Trado Unionism nnd Labonr organisation are built.