PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

Evening Star, Issue 9581, 29 December 1894, Page 4

PRIVATE BENEFIT SOCIETIES.

A CRUSADE BY THE SEAMEN'S UNION.

The Federated Seamen's Union, by v tbe secretary (Mr William Belcher) have sent to the various friendly societies a circular-letter, with a copy of a petition to the Legislative Council, urging the, abolition of private benefit societies instituted by various employers of labor, who, by making membership compulsory as a condition of employment, are said to be limiting the sphere of usefulness and insidiously, rcduomg the membership of legitimate societies, whose business is solely controlled by the members thereof. The circular then proceeds :

That this contingency has arisen must be apparent to all those who have had opportunities of knowing the inner workings of these private concerns. There are in existence at the present time in New Zealand two large private benefit societies (unregistered), whose combined membership amounts to about 1,500. These are the Auckland Sugar Company's and the U.S.S. Company's Mutual Benefit Societies. Independent of these huge concerns, there are numerous smaller ones, whose existence is hardly known outside their own membership. Taking the larger ones as being the most inimical to the interests of the legitimate societies, I will deal with the Union Company's Mutual Benefit Society, which claims a membership of over 900 (nine hundred). This society was inaugurated in 1891, and since its inception a s-irplus fund of nearly £4,000 (four thousand pounds) has accumulated, after disbursing all sick, funeral, and death allowances. This fact, I submit, shows conclusively that money is being un-. necessarily extorted from the members, and there is no other society in existence that I am aware of which, if conducted on fair and equitable lines, «culd possibly amass such a fund in the same space of time. In truth, to such an extent is this fact realised by the company that I am credibly informed the members receive hints to remain on the l>enefit list as loug as possible to obviate the funds assuming abnormal proportions. The rules provide inter alia that the company ghall nominate 7 (Seven) and the employes elect 6 (six) of the Committee of Management. The company's nominees being head 3 of the various departments, it will be apparent that, independent of the balance of voting iwwer being in the company's favor, the representatives of the employes dare not assert themselves, for reasons there is no necessity to specify. The company deuy that men who belong to other societies are compelled to become members of the M.B.S. There certainly is a rule (8) in their books dealing with tlm subject, which is as follows:—" Any employe in the company's service who is in good standing on the books of a /■.•guttered benefit society shall not be required to join this society." This, however, is a dead letter, and merely inserted in the rules to give them some semblance of fairness, and to allay the of the accredited societies. Any individual applying for "employment is asked if he is a member of the M.8.5., and, if the man state* be is a member of another society, he is politely informed that members of the M.B.S. have a prior right of engagement. This is not a direct refusal, but is an indirect manner of saying you must either join our concern or starve. Moreover, the necessity for belonging to a registered society is a piece of presumption, "seeing that the Union Company have made application to have their society registered, but have been refused on the grounds that their rules do not comply with the Friendly Societies Act, In connection with this matterl may state in passing that where a society is unregistered they have no standing in »-ourt, which precludes members from suing for benefits in the event of them being withheld. This naturally places the company in a position to confiscate the whole of the members' contributions in the event of matters not suiting their particular purposes. The benefits attached to the M.B-S. are of such a peculiar nature that it will be necessary to compare them with those provided by the honestly conducted societies. The contributions demanded by the M.B.S. are fixed at from 3s 9d to 7s per month, for which the members receive less benefits thin those provided by other societies, whose members pay a smaller contribution. This, however, is not the worst feature in connection with the matter. For whereas a friendly (society's membership is inaljinsble, and holds good in all parts of the world, the promoters of the M.L.S. only provide benefits while Ken are directly engaged in their employment, and ai.sclutely refuse to accept contributions from persons wh \ for some trifling offence, have been dismissed from the company's service. The hardship of this lays in the fact that men may have joined the 31 B.S. while comparatively yonng, and at a time when they would have been eligible to join other societies; but, after paying contributions for years, they suddenly find themselves cast ?dnft, aud, being over age, are ineligible to become members of those societies which would treat them fairly.

Even assuming membership to be volnntary, this proceeding would be arbitrary in the extreme. But when it is compulsory, and men are compelled M forfeit their membership if they leave their employment without perm'txmm. it becomes positively <-i uel to the individual, and a rank injustice to tne genuine societies. A close perusal of the rules of the M.B.S. will convince anv unbiisf-d person that they are onesided in the extreme, and so wide in ;heir application as to practically give the Union Company complete control over the finance* c,i £he society. The funds are vested in trustees, who are respectively the ehairmau of directors and the managing director of the company, which fact speaks volumes for itself. Tbe members, in some instances, are not even trusted to pay their contni/ution.«, the monoy being deducted from their wages by the eompany-this, of course, being a direct contravention of the Truck Act. The members treated in this manner, knowing there is no redress, have no option but to submit with as good a grace as possible, or lose their position. With the object of putting themselves on the same footing as other societies, the M.B.S. applied for and gained admission to the privileges of the friendly societies' dispensary. But when the members of the affiliated societies became thoroughly conversant with the nature of the M B S a strong feeling of opposition was raised against them, resulting in theit subsequent withdrawal from the dispensary. _ So far I have only dealt with one society; out, as the whole of these private concerns are built inore or less on the same lines, there is no necessity to enter into the details of the management of others. As showing, however, to Ivhat extent employers are encroaching upon the functions of friendly societies, I may state that this system of intimidation and what closely resembles robbery is not, by any means, confined to New Zealand. In Melbourne the tramway employes, and at Broken Hill, N.S.W., the miners are aU com* welled to join similar organisations before getting employment. Likewise the seamen in England, -who have to becom* members of the Shipping Federation's Benefit Society, which encircles the United Kingdom like an octopus. it is a remarkable thing to notice the amount of zeal which employers have suddenly evinced in the interests of their employes. This new-born zeal is of unite recent growth, and makes an interesting study to those who try to discover the hidden motives. The secret, summed up in very few words, is this: Thai large employer* of labor have found a new method of cvpressittg and exploitiwj their workmen., and-intend to it for all it is worth. ' , . „ Looking at the subject purely from a «r:endly society standpoint, it must bo evident that tlw extension of this very dangerous precedent will eventually mean the decline, or, what is worse, the total extinction, of those societies in pur midst which are formed entirely for benevolent and philanthropic purposes. The members required by the employers for their societies must be comparatively young, strong, and physically capable of performing hard, laborious work, or they are not accepted. In proof of this, I may inform you that the Union Company are excluding men from membership who a»e still thoroughly capable of discharging their duties, but. having reached middle age, are not want«l. These are thrown aside for some beneyolent institution £0 provide for, which, of course, means fceing shifted on to the State. It is from the youth in the community that the benefit societies expect to recruit their new members but with work scarce and wages on the decline it will be found impossible to pay contributions into two societies. The employer, insisting on membership beinfl a condition of employment will have'toe advantage, and the benefit societies which are conducted and controlled by their own members will go to the wall. In conclusion, let me ask you: Are you prepared to stand idly by and allaur your splendid organisation, which you have reared with so much trouble and expense, to be ruthlessly weakened or destroyed by designing individuals under the SU *ruiting you will bring this matter prominently before the members of your society, aud kindly request them to support our object by uttaching their signatures to the enclosed petition. The petition to the Speaker and members of the Legislative Council of New Zealand is as follows :

The petition of the undersigned members of bona tide friendly and benefit societies in the colony of New Zealand humbly showeth that private benefit societies are inimical to the best Interests of the existing registered benefit societies for the following reasons:— (a.) That membership of such societies, being Compulsory, is distinctly opposed to the principle of the registered benefit societies, whose membership is voluntary- ~,<■• * (b.) That compulsory membership of private societies prohibits that freedom of contract which your honorable House upholds, and, unless the State establishes a general scheme of insurance or old age pensions, no membership of any friendly or benefit society should be compulsory. * (c) That serious injury is done to the existing friendly societies by the fact that it is from the young men and women who are compelled to join private benefit gocieties that the ordiwary recruits would be found; but, owing to their being forced to join the private societies instituted by employers they cannot afford to join, as their wages will not permit of payment into two societies. Therefore the existing registered societies, many of whose members are getting on in years, cannot find that new blood which is necessary jk? their (d) Tnatthe 'existing registered benefit socje.ties offer all necessary inducements to those desirous of taking advantage'thereof if wey are fairly treated, but we respectfully, submit we are net being so treated -by employers bejng allowed to compel their employes to join novate societies. . :*;■ i\ nfl . (E.) That membership of a private beneflt society is annuHed by member* leaving;-Uu-;r. employment; whereas in the case 01 (sttly'accredited and registered societies membership js inalienable and holds good in all pwrtsrpf the world. Wherefore we respectfully solicit your assistance in passing such legislation will enable our v&rjpus societies to compete upon

fair terms, which cannot be the case until membership is made voluntary and all societies compelled to register under the Friendly Societies Act .-...„ - We humbly ask your honorable House to grant this our request; and we, your petitioners, will ever pray.. -

The following circular by the secretary of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society has also beenv forwarded to secretaries of friendly societies :

Dunedin, December 17,1894. I have now lying before me a circular letter addressed to the benefit and friendly societies throughout New Zealand by Mr William Belcher, secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union, enclosing for signature by the members of friendly societies a petition addressed to the Legislative Council, praying for legislation to abolish private benefit societies. The particular private society to abolish which legislation is invoked is the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual > Benefit Society, and in his attempt to damage the society Mr Belcher has made so many misstatements regarding it that I feel it is only my* duty to call attention to them, and thus perhaps prevent the friendly societies addressed being misled. Tne reasons for which the Seamen's Union ask the suppression of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society are: That its existence is inimical to the interests of legitimate societies; that its accumulated funds are too large, and sick members are encouraged to remain sick in order to prevent them increasing too fast; that its administration is a reign of terror; that in making appointments members of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society are invariably preferred to members of other friendly societies; that the benefits enjoyed by members are less favorable than those conferred by other .societies, while the rates of contribution are higher; and that members who leave the service aro debarred continuing in the society. Similar charges to these have been brought against the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society by those who are out of sympathy with its objects ever since its establishment, and have been refuted by me in the Press in the most open manner more than once; but it can hardly be expected that those who are jealous of its success will acknowledge their error. I can only do what I can by stating the truth to neutralise these attempts to make further mischief. The first objection raised by Mr Belcher—viz., that the existence of the society is inimical to the interests of other friendly societies, and seriously interferes with their membership—is apparently a bid for the support of the societies to which his letter is addressed. But what is the fact V When the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society was initiated, it was found that but of a strength of about 1,000 employe's afloat only sixtysix, or less than 7 per cent., were members of any friendly society; and it is justifiable to infer that had the Mutual Benefit Society not been brought into operation the percentage would have remained the same. Instead of being inimical to other friendly societies, the establishment of the Mutual Benefit Society has been beneficial. It has been the means of making hundreds acquainted with the advantages to be derived from membership of such societies, and I have no doubt whatever has, both directly and indirectly, influenced recruits to their ranks.

The next objection urged against the society—that their funds are accumulating at such a rate as to prove that money is "unnecessarilyextorted" from the members, and that those in receipt of sick allowances are urged not to get well too quickly, so as to keep the funds from increasing too fast—is a most extraordinary one. Of course no one will take seriously the suggestion that sick members are given a hint not to get well, as in all societies sick allowances are only paid on production of a doctor's certificate, which must be renewed weekly, and it is too farcical to suppose that all the medical officers would unite in a conspiracy to plunder the funds. " I am afraid that Mr Belcher has been hoaxed by his "credible informant." With regard to the accumulation, however, which, to quote the figures accurately, amounts to £3,700, not £4,000, as stated by Mr Belcher, there are over 900 members, and tlje society has been in existence three and a-quarter years up to September 30, the date of the last balance-sheet. I understand that under ordinary circumstances this would not be considered a reserve of "abnormal proportions" ; but Mr Belcher very disingenuously omits to that towards the fund* the Union Company have contributed £1,850, or just one-half the amount of this "abnormal accumulation." Mr Belcher next states that the affairs of the society are practically' administered by seven nominees of the company—heads of departments —as the representatives of the crews "dare not assert themselves." Mr Belcher here either purposely makes a misstatement or knows nothing of the management of the society. Of the seven nominees referred to, the president's sole office is to preside at the annual meeting; the vice-presi-dent is the marine superintendent of the company. Of the remaining five, one (the treasurer) is in the company's office at Port Chalmers ; another is a tradesman on the Port Chalmers staff, another superintends the labor on the Dunedin wharf, and the other two are wharf laborers. As a matter of fact, the affairs of the society are practically administered by the representatives elected by the members, and it is to the interest they have taken in the society and to the confidence reposed in them by the members that it largely owes its present position. The assertion that members of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Beuefit Society are invariably appointed in preference to members of other friendly societies is untrue. Applicants for appointments are asked if they are members of any friendly society, and if they can produce their book showing they are in good standing and are otherwise suitable, they are appointed, and are not asked to stand aside in favor of an applicant who may be a member of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society. Where two equally eligible men apply for an appointment, one of whom may be a member of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society and the other a member of another friendly society, the man who has been loDgest out of work is always appointed. The fact that there are at present afloat 72 members of other societies and 200 men who do not belong to any society at all—men on probation and those engaged in trades away from New Zealand—is sufficient proof of itself that Mr Belcher's statement' ia untrue. The statement that the benefits enjoyed by members are less favorable than those granted by othor societies is easily refuted. I need only invite anyone interested to make the comparison. Mr Belcher's statement here is a curious commentary on his previous one that those drawing sick pay are encouraged to remain on the sick list. I would like to know whether there is any other society against which this charge of excessive philanthropy could be brought. I do not think any other society gives its members the surrender value of their membership on their retirement, or would have voted i'lo each to the twenty-eight members saved from the of the Wairarapa. Mr Belcher next states that no onecan continueamember who is not directly engaged in the company's omploymeut. This is not the case. After seven years' membership a member may continue a member until the end of his life, whether in the company's service or not. Again, Mr Belcher states that men who may have joined when comparatively young may be members for years and then find themselves cast adrift, and, being over age, ineligible to join other societies. I don't know what Mr Belcher means by being "cast adrift," nor do I quite understand how a comparatively young man may become so old in less than seven years as to be ineligible to join other societies. As a matter of fact, one-quarter of the employes are under twenty-five years of age, and one-half under thirty, and if the age at which men become ineligible to join other societies is only ft little over this, then the establishment of the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society mUst have been a blessing to them, as all in the employ were af once made eligible, irrespective of age. The insinuations of Mr Belcher that the society is conducted in an unfair and dishonest manner, and that the Union Company's sole object is to terrorise their employes, are too contemptible to notice; just as the implication that capable men of middle age, who do not secure employment in the Union Company, have no option but to become inmates of benevolent institutions is too ridiculous to follow. The most striking feature of Mr Belcher's communication, however, is the new-born Seal which the Seamen's Union i 3 evincing in the supposed interests of friendly societies. Why is this? If the life of these societies is threatened, why is it left to the Seamen's Union to stir them up to the necessity of defending it? And again, is It not strange to find the Seamen's Union straining every nerve to destroy a society membership of which has been of inestimable benefit to many seamen ? Holding out one hand, it says, to the friendly societies : "Let us work together to prevent employers taking a practical interest in the welfare or their men, while with the other it seeks to withdraw from those whose welfare it is supposed to have at heart benefits and privileges which ij; cannot replace. I do not wish to attribute motives, but I think vou will find the answer to the riddle in Mr Belcher's own statement that men find it impossible to pay to two societies. It is no secret that the establishment of the Union Steam Ship ComMutual Benefit Society has seriously interfered with the contributions to the Seamen|s Union; and I will hazard the statement that if the Union Steam Ship Company's Mutual Benefit Society were dissolved to-morrow the membership of the legitimate societies, as Mr Belcher calls them, would not be found materially increased. Ashe says, the men "find if impossible to pay into two societies."—Yours, etc., Charles Grater. Secretary U.S.S. Company s Mutual Benefit Society.