THE NEW UNIONISM.

Evening Star, Issue 11673, 4 February 1902, Page 3

THE NEW UNIONISM.

TO THK BDITC It. Sir,— **Crispin’s ’’ remarks ou the “New Unionism ” are timely, but too brief. Have we unionists no one among us who can and will give us au exhaustive and logical criticism of the articles in question. I feel sure it would be very acceptable to a large number of your readers, and, by showing the reverse of the shield, fair to those who are on trial. lam not capable enough myself for the task, but while the pen is in my hand I would like to write a word or two. The story of the man who cut his throat rather than face the union is very poor stuff to come from a London ‘ Times ’ article. Would the verdict of the jury, at the inquest on the body, nob modify to a great extent the idea of terrorism which the account of the case has evidently been faked up to convey. The assertion that unionists restrict the output may or may not be true. If it is accurate, would it not be a good thing to try to discover the cause of the restriction, and from that devise a remedy. Telling the men that they are ruining “ the trade,” and so injuring themselves, will do no good; they will answer that they can’t be much worse off than they are now, as they only get enough for “ tucker,” and that those who cannot get work in New Zealand somehow get plenty of that. There is no rcstriclin gthe output in America, and so it is held up to us as our pattern; but our employers do not take their American prototype as a pattern, as he pays high wages to produce high efficiency in speed and quality. Thirty dollars a week is a common wage among American boot operatives, and in exceptional cases it mounts up to fifty and sixty dollars. Imagine a "benchman ” here getting the equivalent of sixridollars per week. There are men here who could be quite as efficient as our American cousins if conditions and employers allowed him to be. The exception.il men in New Zealand get £3, or thereabouts, and they are a very small number compared with the whole. They tell us that the restriction of the output is responsible for the low wages; but we know that, if there is restriction, low wages art responsible for it. The minimum wage here is £2 2s. Wages are based on quantity, not on quality. A man gets the minimum, and is expected to do as much as he possibly can. He must not talk; ho must not smoke; and if he is not at his bench, with apron on, .all ready to start galloping the moment the flag falls he is not an eager man, and v that is remembered. If he drops his hammer too quickly when knock-off time is sounded he is too eager —to get away, and that, is remembered. The number of times a day that Nature calls him from his bench is noted, and, in some places, timed by a special clock. In some cases they ar<3 put under men who only hold their places because they are speedy or arc good “drivers.” Will men give their best to men for whom they have not a shred of respect? No. Will men give their best when they are subjected to every possible galling restraint that can be devised? No. Will a man give Ids best for £2 2s per week when he knows that if he and all his fellows did the same the minimum would very soon become the maximum? No. To 'these negative replies of mine, sir, I wish to add these words: “Not if he can help it ” ; for in most of cases he cannot help doing the best that an unwilling man can do. If, after doing his best for a long time, he asks for “rise,” he gets it—if he can earn it; that is, if he can do better than his best. In conclusion, sir, 1 would like to ask if . t is not just possible that low wages and the “ keep-down ” policy, are as much responsible for the restriction of the output as the restriction of the output is for low wages? Let any impartial person sift this matter, taking New Zealand and America for his ground, and I venture to say, sir, that he will come to the conclusion that, in the main, he will agree with Crispin No. 2. February 4.