PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

Evening Post, Volume LXVI, Issue 20, 23 July 1903, Page 7

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

TO THE EDITOK. Sir — Speaking on tho Address-in-Reply Mr. Aitken is reported to have said — "As to preference for unionists, he was quite in favour of unions, but compulsory unionism was quite anothermafcter. Preference for unionists would mean compulsory unionism, and when everybody was compelled to bs a member of a union where would the preference be?" If Mr. Aitken is in favour of unions he ought to be able to realise that preference to unionists is one of the fundamental issues in connection wifch the right of trade organisation. Many a severe and bitter strike has transpired through this very question, resulting in the loss to employers of thousands, and, in numbers of cases, millions of pounds, to say nothing of the lives that have been sacrificed. In regard to the compulsory aspect of the question, surely it will be recognised that most things done are done out of compulsion. As a matter of fact, the large m^? of tihe people axe compelled to work in order to live. It a person desires to travel in order to get employment, he or she i& compelled to pay a fare in order to secure the billet. That being the ease, where is the great haraV ship in asking a, person to pay six shillings to a union in order to get similar employment. It is the one continual argument from the employers that prefeience would lessen the labour market, and thus curtail their choice in the engagement of labour ; this is sheer nonsense, as it wouldi give the employer exactly the same amount of ground to work on as he has at the present time, ¦as rightly pointed out by Mr. Aitken in saying that it would compel all t» be unionists. As a matter of example let me take a trade in which tie employers have 1000 men to pick and choose from ; out of that number, say, 750 are unionists and the others are non-unionists. If preference was made compulsory it would mean that the 250 non-unionists would become unionists, and the employers would have exactly the same 1000 to work on as they had previously. Preference does not mean that employers cannot pick and choose from unionists,* but it mean* that unionists must be employed. Therefore, if 'all workers are unionists, as I hope they soon witf be, where is the inconvenience to employers? If all were unionists and none but unionists employed the fact would remain that unionists- were getting the preference. Unionism cati only be legally supported as such by this condition. The unionists devote their energy, ,time, and money in order to raise their social and industrial conditions. Any improvement that may be made in this connection is equally shared with the non-unionists,- as the awards of the Court of Arbitration apply with equally as much force to the latter as the former, and so it is with any legislation that may be secured from time to time. Whilst deriving all tLe benefits the non-unionists neither giva monetary nor intellectual assistance to unionism whicii secures these things. - In conclusion I would like- to mention that the unionists were responsible for placing on the statute-book the Conciliation and Arbitration Act ; t<hat 'Act alone has been the means of placing into the employing pockets thousands of pounds, seeing that ifc has protected them against the system of strike, and thus protected the industries of the colony. Having secured the employers agamsb this, what are the unionists to get in return? They ask preference of emp!o3 r mentj if this is refused then tie unionists will have to consider whether it is advisable to work under an Act from which they cannot get that recognition which they had prior to- its. becoming law. — I am,, etc., W. T. YOUNG. Wellington, 20th July, 1903.

For bronchial cough, take Woods' Great Peppermint Cure, Is 6d and 2s 6d everywhere. — Advi.