Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS AND OTHER MATTERS.

TO IKJi tl/MOU. Sir,—The opponents and critics of the Labor party's industrial and political programme are very numerous, and not the least amongst them are the daily Press of the colony. It is a truism that, no matter how modest or extravagant are the aspirations of the wage-earners, the Press are invariably agan>f them. There is no difficulty in finding reasons for this strenuous opposition, but as those reasons have nothing to do with the subject under review they can be passed over in cold silence. My preheat object, with your permission, is to make a few remarks on the opinions <3rpressed in your leading article of July 3. which in some respects is very wide of the mark. With some of your sentiments I cordially agree, especially those having reference to the abnormal delays of the Arbitration Court in hearing and deciding disputes referred to them. This feature of the Court's work you have characterised as " scandalous," to "which epithet most of the labor unions will say a prayerful Amen. Finding fault is an easy matter; but suggesting" remedes for well-founded grievances is a science not always known to the person who growls. Your idea, which is not new, to establish two Courts (one for the North and one for the South Island), is an admirable one, and is the only feasible method apparent to myself for getting over the difficulty of delays. Notwithstanding all the assurances to tie contrary, the work for th; Court is accumulating beyond their powers to overtake it. And these delays have bt«n responsible for more intimidation and victimising of unionists than you have any conception of. Employers deny this ; but all the hard swearing in the world doesn't alter the fact that men making themselves prominent in union matters have been " sacked" and driven elsewhere to suppress damaging evidence that could be given against employers or in favor of the unions. My chief obj ; ct in writing is to point out the fallacy of your arguments against "preference to unionists." There is no portion of the workers' programme which is more fiercely opposed than this. And the curious feature of the objections is that it is a concession—indeed, a ri-iht—which 'Ton't cost the employer one red cent, to grant. Small increases in wages and many ether concessions are grudgingly given, but there is an antipathy to preference to unionists which almost rouses the employers to frenzy. But in spite of- this insaneopposit.on the Court have granted preference in more cases than they have refused it. Up to March, 1904, the Court h:,A made .ibout 180 awards, and as far as I can Ltther, "preference" was given in 134 cases, was not asked for in 12 instances, atd was refused in about 36 cases "for reasons stated by the Court—which means that iully three-fourths of the registered unions who have appealed to the Court hire been awarded the " preference " clause. No one appears to have been prejudiced by this arrangement. There has been no riot, and if any perjons, employers or otherwise, have suffered, they have kept remarkably tranquil under circumstance* which usually call forth heartrending shrieks for help. It could hardly be otherwise. For if the " preference" clause, as granted by the Court, is carefully examined, it will be found hedged round with such peculiar restrictions as to altogether preclude the employer from being put to loss or inconverJence. As a rule there are generally more uniomits offering than there are jobs to fill, and it is certainly very little trouble for an employer, when engaging a man. to ask if he is a unionist. Should the supply o£ unionists become exjbatrsted, employers then have the rijht of employing whom they chocs'?, and I can see no special hardship attaching to this system. I Terrain from giving tie reasons advanced by union ists for asking for " preference." This ha? been done so ofren and' with uch conspicuous ability and logic as not to need reiteration. N( ither I trouble you with the tearful fcoLieltud© evinced by employers for the " pore " r.on-unionist. Tihose tears savor of the reptilian kind, and the moisture is a wasted quantity. Ton oprose " preference" on three grounds. First, that unions are voluntary bodies; second, they may not consist of the majority engajed in a txode; and, third, that the best workmen in a trade may not be memb re ; added to which is the rider that admission to a union does not depend on efficiency, and until efficiency is guaranteed by the union "preference" should not be asked for as a rijrht. Taking thes? objections in the order named, I say without hesitation that unons are no more voluntary bodies than is our Parliament. Government is necessary for the welfare of the people, hence the neoessity for a Parliament. Municipal bodies, hospital boards, harbor boards. «nd every kind of local authority or society are hr a sen«e voluntary, simply because experience teaches they are necessary. By the same reasoning unions are necessary to resist and repress the trreed and avarice of those wfw>, if unrestricted, would force afl kirida of imposition on the workers. History has onlv to be read to rea-'ise thrs Sad,. Opinions will, of course, differ as to how far the function* of Governments or unjoin should extend. But that i* a merr> *- of d<>tan when wo once .-■■' '■ < !:■.-. \r*titutioos themselves ,v <- u • ■ :J essential to our well-bein'C As regards the second point, unions, qna unions, cannot be held responsible because , some workers enrragrf no a particular Irsde are unwise enoueh not to join the n- ?uu-a-tion. There is no moral or legislative power to force them to do so. any more than there is to compel people to at a general electron, or to become members of a benefit societv, or any otfber institution makine for the improvement and welfare of the community. But it can be said without f—«■ <rf cantodictisi-thai theae- wio «ou»-

prise the unions are usually the most intelhgent and most efficient workmen, and even if they are in a minority they are responsible for whatever improvements aire eff cted in the social and industrial condition of the workers. In a sense, trade ' unions confer benefits in a general way, identically the same as friendly societies have to nrt specific to their members. But no sane person haa the temerity to advocate that non-members of a friendly society should participate in the funds and benefits along with those who are members and built up the imrtituion. Yet this is the unjust and flloeical course which trade unions are expected to adopt. The only answer to your third objection is that all unions have to recruit their membership from the persons engaged in the in. dustries concerned. And it is unreasonable to infer, as yon do. that the unions wiU only attract to their ranks the worst class of workman in the trade. Those who have a general knowledge of unions think the tendency is altogether in the other direction; for it is the bright and intelligent worker who is desirous of reform and realises that organisation and agitation is the only means of securing it. To impor-e upon unions the of "unranteeing efficiency is a large order indeed, and is as absurd a*s it is impracticable. If the employer insists on the union mechanic and tradesman being efficient, then the latter has an equal right, before accepting employment, to demand that the employer knows his business and is competent to judge the capabilities of the employee. For you must admit there are duffers and incompetents in all walks of life, and it would be the acme of absurdity to depute the judging to perhaps incompetent and interested employers. Enough trouble has already arisen in this resp-et concerning the Court's new and up-to-date " incompetent workmen's clause." Just let me say, in conclusion, that, if guaranteed efficiency, as you contend, is to be the sole claim to the right of " Preference," then there is no union in New Zealand who fill the whole bill, and, moreover, have been persistently refused the right of " preference " on every application. I may be excused for writing in this strain about the Seamen's Union, but it is acknowledged to be one of the oldest and strongest unions in the country. We can assert that 90 per sent, of the seafaring community are members of the union, every one of whom, except trimrrrmers, are compelled by law to produce certificates guaranteeing their ibility to perform the duties required of :hem. If your reasoning is sound, then the Seamen's Union claim " preference" for their members by every test that can be applied. And I am. 6ure the seafaring class will appreciate it if, in accordance with your own argument, you will advocate their just and righteous claim to " preference,*' or advance some logical reason why it should be withheld.—l am, etc., ' WILMAM BbLCHEB. | July 7. J

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19050708.2.90.1

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 12551, 8 July 1905, Page 12

Word Count
1,492

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS AND OTHER MATTERS. Evening Star, Issue 12551, 8 July 1905, Page 12

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS AND OTHER MATTERS. Evening Star, Issue 12551, 8 July 1905, Page 12

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert