THE UNION BADGE-A FIASCO.

Evening Star, Issue 14163, 13 September 1909, Page 8

THE UNION BADGEA FIASCO.

Thp union badge campaign was initiatorl ycstoTday (savs the Svdney ' Telegraph ' of August 31), and has so far proved an absolute fiasco. As far as can be ascertained, there aro only seven establishments in Sydney and suburbs where the union badge can be seen,'and in none, of those is it ostentatiously paraded. The phca-ds which the Shop Assistants' Inion had prepared, bearnig the attractive legend "The Union Badge may be seen in this shop," have riot boon availed of so far by a single firm. Altogether, the movement has proved a frost. The fact has been made very apparent that the general public have no sympathy with the boycott tactics adopted in this instance; in fact, there are records of customers threatening to withdraw their trade if assistance is given to the union badge scheme.

At least a dozen shops were visited by a reporter, and in each case the statement was made that no inquiryhad been made for the union badge, and that no assistant was wearing one. Finally a clue was ohtained as to one firm in George street, the proprietor of which had stated that he bad no objection to his employees wearing the badge. This gentleman said that he was a unionist erapliver, and, hav'ii" worked himself up from the ranks w," entirely in favor of unionist proposals. Urn proprietor also stated that no inquiry harT been made during the whole day for the badge. Any unionist wishing to obev the Labor Council's injunction to boycott those shops in which the badge is not worn will Rnd himself seriously inconvenienced, owing to the fact that no* 1 per cent of the total shoo assistants possess the badge. A shopping expedition will resolve itself into a "badge e! H ' t '[ ?° OV3, ' con ie this difficulty the Shop Assistants' Union had arranged ('-. issue a chart in the form of a " white, list, m which would appear the nan ■<•• of establishments whose proprietors favored the introduction of the badge. But the unioi now finds itself in -i quandary. If it issues the '• white list*' it must face costly legal proceedingJt the list is not i\sued the fate of the campaign is sealed. What will the union do?