PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. The New Labour Minister in Action.

Free Lance, Volume IX, Issue 455, 20 March 1909, Page 6

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. The New Labour Minister in Action.

THE Hon. A. W. Hogg is apparently the observed of observers. When he took up the portfolio of Labour, he was supposed to have such socialistic tendencies as to require careful watching on the part of the employers. Indeed, so recently as a fortnight ago the Farmers' Union resolved to "closely watch the Minister for Labour." Now, the "watching" is likely to be more particularly directs ed upon Mr. Hogg from the ranks of the unionists. The Minister's attitude towards the Furniture Union's deputation on Monday last showed him m a very favourable light. • ♦ » * The Furniture Union's spokesman desired an interpretation of the preference clause in. an award. The case submitted was as follows . — An employer had a non-unionist legitimately at work. Business eased off with him for a day or two, and this man was told to have a few days -off until the slack period was over. The worker was then taken on. again. The unionist contention was that this mam had been, definitely discharged, and the employer should perforce have given preference to a unionist when he wanted more help. That, in fact, the nonr-unionist could not lawfully be re-engaged while unionists were available. • • • The Minister was not ready to concede this ruling to the deputation. He preferred to submit the matter to the Solicitor-General for a ruling, and' his unreadiness to go hamd in glove with the unionists became immediately a casus bellit to the deputation Mir. Hoggs attitude, however, and his straight talk to the somewhat impolite spokesman, has gone for towards reassuring the public on the subject of the almightiness of unionists. There is much food for reflection, for the members of unions in the statement niade by Mr. Hogg that "the object of the Labour Department is to protect not one side alone, but both sides — employer and employee. They seem to think the employer has no claim to consideration at all. • • • Incidentally, m this connection, the utteiances of Mr. Justice Sim are worth noticing. The judge has stated that ' 'non-unionists are those who want all the benefits of the awards without sharing the burdens, and that thexe is no principle in nonr-unionism." Again, Mr. Justice Sim is reported as having declared tihat "no employer should employ non-unionists." Is not this using the employer to force men into unions? But is it altogether a desirable thing; an end to be achieved at all hazards. Must every

man be compelled to sacrifice his own independence of action, and conform to the dictates of a party who are everlastingly involving themselves in industrial contention, and in a great measure defeating their own ends? Unionism of the compulsory order has not beeai proved to be the great boon hi Amenca which it was expected to be. Here in, New Zealand also its history is stained with many sad blemishes. A little of the impartiality and firm administration shown by Mr. Hogg on Monday will have results as favourable to the trades unions themselves as to the community at large. A little straight talk now and then will have wholesome effects.