The H.B. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1927. TRADE UNION LAW

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, Issue 120, 6 May 1927, Page 4

The H.B. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1927. TRADE UNION LAW

Although our overnight messages state that the final vote on the Trade Unions Bill was likely to be taken in the House of Commons yesterday, there is not at time of writing any word received with regard to the result. We are told that Air. Lloyd George had yet to speak on behalf of the Liberals, while Air. J. H Thomas was expected to have something more to say as to Labour views. So far as the Liberals are concerned it would seem reasonable, from yesterday’s summary of Sir John Simon’s speech, to assume that they will accord general support to the measure. Any adverse criticism he had to offer would appear to have been that of a keen-witted lawyer pulling to pieces the wording of a Bill formulated by a prominent rival at the Bar. To its broad principles he seems to have had no objection to offer. Mr. Lloyd George, as one in opposition, will doubtless also be able to discover something to find fault with, though it is by no means likely that he will do anything but give it his little party’s wide blessing. Mr. Thomas, as a matter almost of course, will continue to condemn the whole , measure, although it can scarcely be thought but that, in his heart, a man of such moderate views must approve of much that is in it. That the Bill will go through is an almost foregone conclusion, but the meantime we may have a look backward on some phases of the law as it now stands. The existing condition of trade union law in Great Britain is the outcome of a long historical development. In the early days of the industrial revolution, combinations of workmen were illegal, on the broad ground that they operated in restraint of trade. This prohibition acted very harshly on the worker. It left him at the mercy of the employer and was in some measure the cause of the hardships and sufferings of the early period of the industrial revolution. By degrees, however, the workman won the right of combination, trade unions were legalized, and collective bargaining became the industrial order of the day. The last legislation of importance Wae the Trade Union Act of 1906. A decision of the courts, the well-known Taff-Vale decision, had made trade union funds liable fur damages caused by trade union action in an industrial dispute. This was generally regarded as unfair, seeing the great financial weakness of trades unionist at that time as against capital, and it was ■

generally agreed that at least those funds which had been subscribed for benevolent and other similar purposes ought to be protected against actions for damages in industrial disputes. It was not, however, at all easy to devise the means of doing so without placing the trade unions “above the law,’’ as the saying goes. The Act of 1906 was a compromise. It gave trade union funds certain very important immunities, it permitted the unions to make a levy for political purposes, subject to the right of individual trade unionists to “contract out,” and it legalized "peaceful picketing.” That Act worked without much criticism until last year. But the general strike brought home to everybody that it was one thing to give somewhat generous immunities and powers to the small trade unions which existed twenty years ago, ana quite another to give them to the immense federations of trade unions which exist to-day. For the general strike was unquestionably an attempt on the part of the unions, or rather of those who brought it about, to use their strike power in defiance of their contracts and so to force Parliament to comply with their views about the miners' claims. The right to strike for industrial ends is one thing; the rght to call a general strike for political ends is clearly another. It is, however, easy to recognise the difficulties there are in drawing the line definitely between widespread sympathetic s trikes for industrial ends and general strikes for political ends, or between picketing by way of peaceful persuasion and picketing by way of intimidation. Apparently, in these respects, Sir John Simon considers the Bill defective.