TRADES AND LABOR COUNCIL.

Evening Star, Issue 11495, 12 March 1901, Page 7

TRADES AND LABOR COUNCIL.

BEnA" TO THE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION'S PRESIDENT. J The following is the reply of the Executive, instructed by the Trades Council, to Mr J. G. Thomson's speech at the annual meeting- of the Industrial Association of Otago, held last Thursday : Mr J. C. Thomson, president of the Industrial Association of Oiago, made use of his position, in addressing the annual meeting of that body last Thursday evening, to make- a virulent attack on the labor unions of this colony and on the labor legislation of the present Government. If the statements made by Mr Thomson were left unanswered the impression might get abroad among those who did not know ;;ny better that they were true and unanswerable ; and ko this Council, representing about 3,000 unionists in and about Dunedin, deem it their duty to put the matter before the public from their point of view, and allow the public to judge which side is right. The Industrial Association of Otago is composed of seventy-live members, fifty of whom joined when the Association was formed in November, 1899. leaving twentylive who have joined since. Thus, in liftecn months they have made twenty-five members—surely not a, very rapid rate- of progression for an Association which has such lofty aims as this on?. These aims include : To encourage men of science in their attention to the invention and improvement of manufacturing, mining, and productive tools, implements, machinery, appliances, and arts; lo generally promote, foster, encourage, and develop local manufacturing, mining, and productive industries; by the distribution of prizes, models, specimens, ;iud samples, and by other means to encourage the adaptation and use of the newest and best modes of manufacturing, mining, and producing ; to encourage enterprise and industry by holding exhibitions ot manufactures, etc. ; and by granting prizes thereat for the best exhibits: and by competitions for inventions and improvements. These are the principal objects of the .Association, and very noble ones they are, and deserving of the support of us ail—if it was ever intended to carry them out. We are sorry lo see that two of our labor members belong to it. We n-e not altogether'surprised at this, because we defy anyone lo read the objrel-s of this Association and find in them anything inconsistent with the strongest labor unionist in the colony being a memher ; indeed, the Association go the length of offering special iuduecments to mechanics, artisans, or employes la very large number of whom are unionistsl to join by allowing them in at half-subscription: and yet the Association, through their president, insults them, as we will show before wc are finished. We would respectfully ask that litis Association cither deal with matters which are embraced in their constitution or enlarge their constitution so as to embrace matters such as were touched upon last Thursday night; for it is very "vident the Association are trying to make members under false representations. This no doubt accounts for (wo M.H.R.s being membei-s : but now that they have found out the "true"' objects of the Association I hey may rind it necessary to consider their position.

We will now take a few of Mr Thomson's statements in the order they appear. He says the active existence of the Association is little more than six months. As they were formed in November, 1899, the sleeping or moribund existence must have been nine months. He say;*: "It has chiefly been concerned in watching the operations of our legislators during the past session . . . and in criticising and opposing many of the crude proposals brought forward under the guise of labor legislation." We do not object to this as long as it is done fairly and above-board, but we would like, Mr Thomson to point out under what rule of the Association they do this. Hs says that many of the measures " indicate a sad waste of time and misdirected energy anything but creditable to the intelligence of our representatives." As the two M.H.R.s who are members of Mr Thomson's Association supported all the " crude " proposals he speaks about, they will no doubt appreciate their president's " complimentary" remarks about them, and we will leave them to deal with the matter.

Passing over one ov two very debatable subjects, we come to what Mr Thomson calls "probably the most important, labor legislation yet enacted." This is preference to unionists. He says this is " a measure entirely at variance with our ideas of freedom and the will of the majority." Our ideas of freedom and Mr Thomson's are probably as wide as the poles asunder. Wo have a shrewd suspicion of what he believes in, but will not mention it here; we will leave our readers to judge from the tone of his address. We believe in combination for the purpose of getting a, fair day's j>a,y for a fair day's work. Our experience has been that no body of workers can pet fair pay and fair conditions unless they combine to do so. Probably he admits this. Tf so. is there anything more reasonable or logical in- this world than that (he person who pa/s into a, union to better his conditions (and also his non-union worker—for if the one is benefited the, other must \k so) should get preference over the man who has not contributed one penny towards these expenses'.' It has cost some, unions in (his town hundreds of pounds to fight their case against their employers, and they have invariably succeeded in bettering their wages and conditions. This money has come, out of the pockets of the unionists ; and yet Mr Thomson would expect to see the man who has neither supported it by money nor influence get the same conditions and the same, wages as the one who had fought, and bled for Kettering both their conditions. I'verv president of the. Arbitration Court yet, and there have been four judges of the (Supreme Court presidents, recognised the logic, ami fairness of the- preference to unionists, and gave it when they possibly could. Mr Thomson seems to think that unionists must get preference., for he says "no amount cf discussion can justify its passing into law." Wo were under the impression (hat it was optional -with the boards and courts whether unionists got preference or not, and perhaps Mr Thomson will not be ahovc, learning ihis from us. The " will of the majority" is exactly where the Arbitration Court draw the line, and if they find that the majority in a particular trade are outside the union the, Court will not give, preference to unionise. Mr Thomson believes in (he, '■ wili of th« majority.- or professes to do so. Then why does he complain about a, trade that, has 99 per cent, of union members getting preference for their members over the 1 per cent, outside the union'.' Perhaps he will say he means the will of the. majoiitv of the people of the colony. Wc take it that Parliament represents the will of ihe majoritv of the people, as they were put there, liv the people, and Parliament has decreed thai it, is legal to give unionist* preference. But perhaps Mr Thomson is above. " the. will of the majority," as he has said that "no amount of discussion can jusrity its pa?sin<* into lnw." .Judges William's. Kdwards" Denni.ston. and Martin have said that it is right, and fair to give unionists preference; Mr Thomson says that, it is wrong. The Minister of Public Works in New South Wales has also issued instructions that unionists shall have, preference of employment. This is in advance of N'ew Zealand legislation, as our Government have nof got that length yet. We leave the public to judge which Las the, stronger case. The employers' sjde tried very hard to make out that it was illegal. |, ut , |,|io (>„„.,- of Ant)r ,t unanimously decided that it was perfectlv

rte next, come to the statement that "no tradesman who Is „, Krst.-c.fess workman honest, sober, mdustrious. and who take* ,' Fide, in h, s calling, has ever found anv difficulty m securing employment „" full time and at the. highest rate of wages o matter what fluctuations took place in lblabor market. «uch men. never fall cut in otpresseJ tunes." This display* ,"an «n " able ignorance of (he true state of albU H J» " n a f* r , wiU > the rich man's' quVt'ion ■ ".Oh, why do the poor complain? l r' net man, surrounded with luxury, could nos comprehend why anyone should comp ain Mr Thomson, drawing his weeklv income cannot comprehend why anyone who is -I gooa tradesman should be out of work ' 1 he will call on us we will , U pp!v ],;„," „ itl names bv tt.e dozen of men who a're «« clevc' «t their particular calling as he it at hi* -<-j 0 « not ou XuU fcbw. *ud. uju, Jo not ' u ; iru

anything like a decent wage all the year round. Take the boot trade lie speaks about. A member of that'craft said (and lie challenges anyone to contradict it), in the very issue that Mr Thomson's address appeared, that taking the average oi 200' men for twelve months would not give 35s ner week. 'Mr Thomson will perhaps ••emit I hat there must be some good men amongst these 200. and yet they do not get full time, nor anything like it, and, consequently, not full money. There arc any number of call-, ings where first-class men do not get constant employment, and v.c would advise Mr Thomson to make a little more inquiry about the real state of affairs before he imikes such rash statements a.s these.

Another gem of Mr Thomson's : " Recognising vho injustice to non-unionists underlying this Aet s the Arbitration Court have decided that unions shall be no longer clo-o corporations, but must open their ranks to all.at what is called a nominal entrance fee and levy. Why, may T ask, should anyone be compelled to contribute, to the fimd.s of any association against his will, particularly when such levy does not give the benefits of full membership?" Wcwould a.sk Mr Thomson to name unions that have beeu close, corporations and have uoc at all times opened their ra.nks lo men joining at a nominal entrance fee and levy. Re in few that unions have been compel! :d lo lower their entrance fee and levy. Prrfuyis he knows more, about this Ihnn'wo do, a.'vl if so, we would in turn be. glad to be tn-Kght-ened by him. We know of instances where, men ha.ve been fined for " ratting ' ir " bhuddegging'; but this should meet with Mr Thomson's approval, as be complain? a.bout the unions not demanding the. highest standard of efficiency and morality. W\ would like also to know what unions do i ot give full benefits of membership to those who pay their contributions. Perhaps he can enlighten us there also. In this remarkable tissue of misstatements (to put it mildly) the biggest one is that it is "a noticeable fact that the majority of firstclass workmen do not belong to unions. ;l This is a, gratuitous insult to unionists. We would respectfully ask Mr Thomson to prove this statement or be gentlemanly enough to withdraw it. If it is " a noticeable, fact" he will have no difficulty in proving it. We may have something to say about this a( a later date, but in the. meantime challenge Mr Thomson to make good his assertion. In this remarkable tissue of insults to unionists the worst one. is that " it is an equally noticeable and remarkable, fact that the affairs of the labor organisations are. in Iho hands of men who have been marked failures in I heir respective callings ; but it explains the very limited scope of their operations and aspirations..'' We consider ourselves classed in his list, according to his standard, of those "who have been marked failures in their respective callings." Willi all due deference to Mr Thomson, we would prefer to leave the matter of our competency in the bands of our employers, and if they wish to consult him on the ma'ter no doubt they will send for him. We again challenge Mr Thomson to prove his assertions, and if they are so " noticeable and remarkable'' he will have no difficulty in doing so. We know only too well, and perhaps Mr Thomson knows too. that there are good tradesmen who have lost their positions and suffered otherwise through their connection with unionism. Perhaps these, are some of Mr Thomson's "marked failures. - ' No later than last week, if Mr Thomson reads the papers, he wUI have noticed that the principal officers in the Wa.ihi Miners' Union were dismissed from their employment in a, body. Perhaps they were "' marked failures." However, Mr Tregear, of the Labor Department, had to step in to get them reinstated. Very few employers are as straightforward as this one and dismiss the men in a. body, ft ii:, we are sorry to say, done in a roundabout way, and we know it. to be only too true that some employers ha.ve made prominent union men what Mr Thomson would call " marked failures."

We have not nearly exhausted the subject;: in this remarkable a.ddress. but will onlv touch on one more—that is, that Conciliation Boards have been used by unions " to ascertain the lines of defence the employers intended to adopt before citing them before the Court.'' We do not believe for one. mo-' m?r.t that any large percentage of the se-venty-live members of the Industrial Association of Otago have, any sympathy with such a statement. Nor do "we think that th? employers as a whole think so. Tf we did wo are ready to answer it; but in the meantime .we are content to think that the gentleman who professes to know so much about labor unions and their management stands pretty well isolated in this matter. In conclusion, we would just say that we, as unionists, a.re accused of always crying "Give! give!" Tf asking for what one "considers is his fair share of wages can be const rued into that, we plead guilty. We are too well aware that the cry of " Give ! give !" was always heard from one side at one time, and that side is not done, ay it is still trying to get the unprotected worker (and does get him, we are sorry to say) to p;ive his labor in return for a miserable existence.; but, thanks in a great measure to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. the other side are having an innings, and demanding that an impartial tribunal shall abjudicate between master and man. Could anything be fairer than that? We know that' we cannot more than what, is considered a fair thing, and we are willing to allow the courts i,f the, land to decide, what that is. While, we deprecate putting class against class, we, hope the day will never come when labor unions of this colony—or any other pari of the world for that nialter—wi 11 fail to stand up shoulder to shoulder for their rights. The president of the. Industrial Association has not. only tried to put class against class, but he has tried to start a civil'war by putting unionist against non-unionist.