TRADE UNIONIST CLAIMS FOR PREFERENCE IN EMPLOYMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11571, 8 February 1901, Page 7

TRADE UNIONIST CLAIMS FOR PREFERENCE IN EMPLOYMENT.

" TO THE EDITOR. . . Sir,—Were it not foe® the fact that even learned Judges of the Supreme Court of New Zealand have been misguided in their judgments by the sophistry of those making this claim, it would generally be regarded as so absurd as to be beyond, the realm of serious consideration; a' fact which, amazing'as it is; would bo utterly incredible but for the well-known ;-. power of selfish senti-; ment in human nature to warp and obscure the'judgment. The childlike simplicity of both claimants and judges in .this matter would be refreshing and amusing were it not that in the endeavour to realise the dream an element of discord and strife will' have been introduced' such as in other times would have led to civil war. As this is one of the most - audacious—even insolentproposals ever made in any country with the slightest pretensions to freedom, I will, sir, as briefly as possible present the claim from the trade ; union point •of view, and then show how. utterly absurd it is; in fact, an insult to. common sense. " The argument of th© unions is this: That whereas they _ are at considerable expense and trouble in agitating for and obtaining better terms for themselves :in the selling of their labour, and as many who do not subscribe to their funds also participate in the said advantages, it is reasonable and-' just, they say, that they, the member? of. tho. trade' unions, should be recompensed by preference of employment. Tin's, sir, is the reasoning which has captivated some of our learned Judges, and convinces hundreds of interested workmen. In other words,'buyers are asked (and, if necessary, compelled). to patronise those vendors who have, or who claim to have, been mainly or wholly the moans of raising the price of their commodities. The mere statement of the proposal in this way, which is exactly the same in substance as made by the trade unionists, should shako the faith of even the most confident trade-unionist in its justice or practicability, No, sir, it is not from those from whom they have exacted better rewards foi their service? they can reasonably expect preference (unless, indeed, we are prepared to have the great champion of passive resistance put to shame b? not merely turning the other • cheek, but insisting that our assailants shall strike it), . but from those who are ; reaping the,benefits, of their exertions. What would even the densest and most infatuated trade unionist ' say, ' or do, were it proposed that he should be compelled to transfer his " custom" or patronage to members of commercial " rings," who had been the means of making him - pay more for his commodities? ■ I venture to say, without hesitation, that he would denounce it with all tho force at his command. ; And if it were sought to be enforced civil war would be the result, even in this age, and little wonder. 1 have already taken up a considerable portion of your space, but the necessity I see for plain, candid criticism, must be my apology when I say that, coming as it does from workmen's unions, it comes as no surprise to those who have observed them closely. And, were its enforcement possible,' it would be but the logical issue of their methods and ambitions. I do not wish to imply that the mass of trade unionists have been fully aware of the tyrannical nature of their aims, am, etc., New North Road. , E. Morris.