Manawatu Evening Standard. Circulation, 3.500 Copies Daily. SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1909. UNIONISM BY COMPULSION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8828, 20 March 1909, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. Circulation, 3.500 Copies Daily. SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1909. UNIONISM BY COMPULSION.

The benighted Mahommedan of olden times offering conquered peoples "the Koran or the sword" appears as the prototype of the modern trades unionist whose formula, though changed in form, is much the same in effect. " Compulsory unionism or starvation" is the ultimatum issued by the unions in New Zealand, which country seems to be as completely at the mercy of organised labour as were any of the nations that the followers of Islam dominated. While compulsory unionism was only put forward by the extremists it did not merit much serious attention, since the principle was not accepted either by Parliament or the Arbitration Court. A position has now arisen, however, that justifies the protest of employers all over the couiitry. Mr Justice Sim, while hearing cases in Wellington this week, remarked that he did not know why employers bothered with nonunionists. Mr Grenfell, the employers' representative, pointed out that there were many workers—and superior workers at that—who declined to become members of a union. This drew from His Honor the comment that such men "want the benefits of the awards without sharing any of the burden. It is mere meanness; there is no principle in it at all. Employers should say to non-unionists, 'I don't want to be bothered with non-union-ists. If you want employment with me you must join the union.'" On Mr Grenfell submitting that employers should not be compelled to force workers into a union, His Honor said "there would be no compulsion about it. All the employers need do is to say, 'I decline to employ nonunionists.' A great! deal of time was wasted through cases having to be brought against employers for breaches of the preference clause." Mr Justice Sim thus introduces a new factor into the administration of the labour laws and one not hitherto contemplated by Parliament. Some opinions on the point have been obtained. The Hon. Millar in 1907 expressed himself as follows:—"At every donference the trades councils had been a ring for statutory, uncondi•tionail preference to unionists, and well, he would tell them that no Parliament would give any body of men the right to make rules on any lines they pleased. They would never get preference on any other line than that given already. The door would always be left open. Parliament, he re- J peated, would never grant a body of

men the power to make rules taking away from any other body of men the right to live." The previous occupant of Mr Justice Sim's position, Mr Justice Chapman, gave his view inthese words:—-"It has always been recognised as a cardinal rule that the giving of preference of employment to unionists is not intended to 1 foßce unsuitable men upon an employer to the detriment of his business, and it is consequently the duty of a union to show the employer, by means of the employment book, what he is to look for in the case of unemployed men, in order that he may pursue his inquiries as to their suitability without delay or inconvenience." It is difficult in the face of these expressions of the intentions of Parliament and the interpretation of the Act to see how the most recent views' on the subject can be justified. They practically mean that the man who has conscientious objections to unionism can starve or acquiesce in a movement that is contrarv to his convictions. That is surely a position that calls for legislative interference since it is opposed to all the dictates of justice and right.