COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 131, 4 June 1936, Page 8

COMPULSORY UNIONISM

(To the Editor.) Sir, —With your kind permission I would like to make a few comments on the article in your leading columns under the above caption. As a trades unionist of nearly fifty years' standing I can safely say that my experience proves that trades unions, are run almost exclusively on a democratic basis. Possibly there may be one or two exceptions. I have always understood it to be a basic principle of democratic control that the majority must rule. I quite agree with your contention that you cannot make trades unionists by Acts of Parliament or by an award of the Court of Arbitration. To be a good trades unionist you must be one by conviction not by compulsion. On the other side, we have those selfish individuals who remain outside the trades union movement, but who always have been ready to avail themselves of all the benefits achieved by the efforts of the unions to improve the conditions of the workers. It is hardly necessary for me to remind you that these efforts to improve the conditions of the workers have entailed upon the unions of New Zealand a vast amount of work, and a considerable outlay of money. Yet when any attempt is made to amend the industrial laws with a view to improving the conditions of workers, our newspapers appear to be more concerned about the rights (?) of those who prefer to remain outside the labour movement (and obtain all the benefits thereof) than with those who have fought and paid to secure the benefits. With regard to your remarks that "it has not been conceded as even

possible that some groups of workers have such amicable relations with their employers that they are anxious to continue on the same basis." These remarks would seem to imply that you are of opinion that a body of workers cannot obtain an industrial agreement or award and yet retain amicable relations with their employers. Such contention is absolutely opposed to my experience of the trades union movement. On the other hand, I think you will not deny tftat at times of stress (such as a strike) there have been bogus unions formed by employers in order to defeat the bona fide labour union. Is it to be wondered at, therefore, that all unions and guilds formed outside the labour movement are viewed by trades unionists with the gravest distrust, and, in my opinion, with very good reason. Of the evils of company unions as experienced in U.S.A. you are no doubt as fully conversant as I am, therefore I will not waste your space in dilating on them, but I sincerely hope that our Government will spare no effort to prevent the formation of such unions in New Zealand.

You admit that a newly-formed union with, say, one hundred members may decide to affiliate with the Alliance of Labour. You also concede that possibly such affiliation will only hold good while the majority of the union favours it. So far your argument is good, and I agree with it. Then you get back to the sacred right of the minority not to' contribute to the support of a political party to which they are opposed. Probably you are quite sincere in your argument that the rights of the minority require safeguarding. On the other, hand you may be actuated by the same motives which, allegedly, influenced the British Conservative Government, when it passed a law that trades union funds could not be devoted to the support of the British Labour Party. The trades union members at this time on a moderate computation comprised 95 per cent, supporters of the Labour Party. This 95 per cent, of unionists had to strike a levy on themselves if they desired to contribute to the support of the Labour Party to which they were affiliated, in order that the funds of the 5 per cent, minority should be safeguarded. As both the leading parties (Conservative and Liberal) possessed huge fighting funds, it was contended by the Labour Party that the Government was not so much actuated by a desire to safeguard the trades union funds of the minority as it as to prevent the Labour Party accumulating funds for fighting the next General Election. I feel constrained to admit that it is reasonable to suppose the Labour Party was right in its contention.—<l am, etc., _ i ROBT. E. VANEY. j i I ,