PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

Evening Star, Issue 17925, 22 March 1922, Page 7

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

AN OPEN LETTER. RETURNS OF TRADE UNIONS’ FINANCE. . * Sir, —We take the liberty of addressing you and all members of the House of Representatives on two questions which appear to us as necessary to bo dealt with by Parliament at the earliest opportunity. These matters are, first, the lack of proper provision for safeguarding tho funds of industrial unions, and, secondly, tlio absence of provision for protecting tho individual rights of citizens under the operation of what is known as tho “preference to unionists ” clause.

lu Great Britain, under the Trade Union Act, each and every union is required! to supply annually to the Registrar of Friendly .Societies a return showing its financial position, with particulars in respect to income and the details of its expenditure under .specified These returns aro open to public inspection, and in this way those contributing to such funds may know whether the same are properly managed or not. Wo find that hero there aro 110 such provisions in the Industrial Act under which most of tho unions are registered. Our attention was recently drawn to the balance-sheet of one New Zealand union of workers, which disclosed this state of affairs: Total receipts, £9,069. Credit balance to commence the year was £1,634-, and at close £BO6. The total expenditure was £10,170. V 0 find that approximately £5,500 was expended in' salaries, allowances, and delegates’ expenses. It must be evident that an expenditure oi 60 per cent, of income 011 management reauires explanation. Other case© we have noted me unions of 1,000 to 2,00-0 members, charging high subscriptions, and! yet having practically no funds in reserve after years of operation. As a means of protecting the individual workers who pay into these funds we suggest that an urgent need exists for Parliament to review tilts matter.

As you aro aware, the question of striking out tho preference to unionists clause from industrial agreements and awards, and of repealing the power now vested te the Arbitration. Court to grant such preference, has recently been under mucii discussion. This is evidently the outcome of experiences in respect to the operation of that privilege which aro pressing hard upon both employers and workers. Apart from the general question of whether any sucli special right should be allowed, wc desire to draw your attention to the fact that the full conditions upon which preference may be granted have never been set out and defined in the Act. We find that the general unconditional preference is producing such results as these; (1) Xha-t money paid into some unions for industrial purposes is in a degree diverted 1 to political party uses. (2) That individuals .are, through their unions, used to advance a political party contrary to their convictions or desires. (3) That special levies and charges aro in some instances imposed by unions for general objects of industrial and political welfare in such a degree as to prevent certain individuals from earning their livelihood. Now, sir, wo submit that such results aro destructive of tho personal rights of

j many electors, unjustified on any grounds j of necessary State policy and inimical to I the general political constitution of tho Dominion. When tho industrial legislation : was passed) allowing for tho granting of I preference to unionists it was surely never i contemplated that such should be allowed |to operate in the direction of practically compelling some electors to pay towards ! the support of a political party or being , included 1 without their consent as supporting political movements, oft-tiracs of a revolutionary character, which they totally disagree with. The argument that individual workers may, if they so choose, refuse to pay into tlipir union for any political purpose or can oppose the action of tho union in supporting a political party has little practical value. In our country, where the secret ballot is applied in (order to conserve the electors’ personal 1 right, no individual should be forced 1 to j incur the liability of with his felI lows, and possible lose of employment, to j enable him to exercise his freedom as a citizen. Our purpose in writing to you is 1 to emphasise the necessity which exists of j legally safeguarding tho great mass of ! workers in respect to the moneys they j contribute for industrial purposes, and proI tecting their personal rights as electors of I the Dominioil. We think you will agree with us that I these questions urgently require atten- ! lion. If you can see your way wo should |be glad if you will let us know whether 1 you favor tho suggestions herein, made of | legally requiring the deposit with the re- ; gistrar of annual returns of the unions’ finances, and a defining and limiting of the terms and conditions upon which preference may be granted so an to restrict its use and effect to purely industrial ends if the system of granting preference to | unionists is to .be continued.—Wo are, etc., Auimm P. Haupeu, National Secretary N.Z, Welfare March 14. ” League,