THE OTAGAO DAILY TIMES DAILY JANUARY 6. 1902. THE TYRANNY OF TRADE UNIONISM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12243, 6 January 1902, Page 4

THE OTAGAO DAILY TIMES DAILY JANUARY 6. 1902. THE TYRANNY OF TRADE UNIONISM.

One of the clauses in that fantastical document "The Political Platform of the Workers' Political Committee" provides for the curtailing of the hours of labour by statute until every member of the community can be employed. This sentiment briefly embodies the aspiration? of the Socialist Labour leaders of the twentieth century, but there is much more in it than at first appears. The fundamental principle of the newer unionism is the absorption of the unemployed, not by the scientific method of increasing the volume of trade, but bv the short-sighted device of em- • ploying a larger number of persons on the work already in progress. The first step in this direction was the adoption of the eight hours system, to be followed, as evidenced in the original Factories Bill introduced last session, by a working day of seven or even six hours. In the meantime a practice largely prevails which is even more effectual than any statute—viz., that of takiug things as easy as possible during working hours, so that more openings can be found for the unemployed. The enhanced cost of production inseparable from such restriction of output and the consequent driving of trade out of a country in which it is practised is apparently of little import compared with the determination of the workers to dominate the situation, with the ultimate anni* filiation of individual enterprise and the Rationalisation of everything which suits their selfish ends. Any approach to the truth that a community of interest between master and man is one of the first essentials to industrial supremacy has seemingly not yet dawned unon the minds of the aggressive unionist. To what extent this "go easy" system of working obtains in this colony is difficult to decide; it is sufficient to note that at least one glaring instance was admitted and persisted in, and was only rectified by the' adoption of the " piecework" principle on the part of the employers. Indeed, it i 3 to be feared that although there exists a universal desire for a fair day's pay (and more if it is to be had) there is > amongst many of those subject to unionist influence, despite indignant denials to the contrary, an equal unwillingness to do a fair day's work. Tile extent to which this mischievous practice is eating the very heart out of British industry is strikingly revealed in a series of articles which a well-informed correspondent is contributing to our English contemporary, . The Times. He has evidently been at considerable trouble to glean his information, and the facts quoted afford remarkable illustration of the actual working out of trade union theories. The " go-easy" policy of the

British working man is thus defined: "Men are not to put forward their best powers. They must work in such a way that it will be necessary for others to be called in to help on the work they would otherwise get through themselves, employment being thus found for the largest possible number of hands." The whole system, as now worked, is declared to be the direct outcome of trade unionism, coupled with advanced Socialism. 11l its mildest phase, it takes the form of keeping the strong, efficient, and willing worker down to Ike productive level of the weakest and most inefficient; and in its worst aspect it amounts to deliberate cheating—that is to say, a man accepts wages as-the price of his whole capacity and energy and gives only a half or two-thirds of them in return. These grave assertions arc backed up by ?ome perfectly, startling facts. The building trade first comes under review. There is no precise rule as to how many bricks a man shall lay as the result'of a day's labour, but 20 years ago a bricklayer would get through 1000, and 30 years ago, by men employed on railway tunnel work in London, as many as 1200 a day were laid, whilst in America- a still higher tally has been reached. By the unwritten union law of the present day 400 bricks per diem is now the recognised maximum for ordinary work, and woe betide the unfortunate bricklayer who dares to transgress the rule. A now hand put on a job went to work energetically and laid 724 brides during the first day. This so dissatisfied the other bricklayers that they gave him to understand that thev would not have him working with them, and a complaint to the foreman resulted in his being put on another job. Here ho displayed the same energy, and was finally put off altogether. 'A foreman who iusisted on the bricklayers under him doing a fair day's work for their money was summoned before his society, charged with "sweating," and fined 5s for each offence. In the case of work done for the London County Council and the London School Board matters are much worse, both bodies being largely controlled by Labour members returned by active labour organisations, who play directly; into the hands of the trades unions. The standard of work thus fixed in the case of public buildings is at a scandalously low level. In one case a contractor complained to some of the bricklayers engaged on straightforward work, on which they could have easily have laid 600 to 700 bricks per day, that they were not doing enough. The reply given was characteristic. "The London County Council limit is 330 bricks the day. That is what they consider a fair day's work, and we are uoL going to do more for you or anyone else?' It is also affirmed that in the case of a certain board school in London the average number of bricks laid was only 200 a day, and in yet another school the work done represented an average of only 70 bricks per man per day. And it is not against the London bricklayer alone that complaints of "goeasy" practices are made. It is alleged that from the navvy who digs the foundations to the painter who puts on the last coat of varnish, all the men engaged in the building trade are in the same boat as regards doing less work for more money—for ha.ve substantially increased of late years. And unfortunately unless he makes up his mind to resort to exclusively non-union labour, the average master builder is practically at the mercy of his men, for if he is suspected of complaining they will promptly leave the job to finish itself. Another sorrowful instance of tho tyranny of trades unionism is to be found in the British shipbuilding trade, that immense industry which, after growing by leaps and bounds, during the last 20 years, finds itself sadly hampered, partly because there are not enough men to do the work, and partly because those who are employed will not turn out all the work they can. The aim of the boilermakers is to keep their trade—undoubtedly a good one—in a few hands, so that work may be obtained for every man on the books. Thus employers are bound to give work to worthless and profligate men, and keep on paying high wages to one and all. AH this time plenty of strong, vigorous men are walking about idle, but it is against union rules for them to be taught tho business. The boilermakers' new rules for 1901 tend to increase rather than diminish the restriction of output, and it is significant that one of the rules declares that "it is not in the interests of this society that piecework Bhould be done." No wonder that when shipbuilders are told that England is a free country thev are inclined to doubt the assertion. Many similar instances could be quoted, all going to prove that the trend of this newer unionism is in direct menace to commercial prosperity. Bearing in inind tho disastrous effects of the domination by the Labour party of the Loudon Countv Council and School Board, tho people of Now Zealand may'well pauso before deciding to further commit the future of this colony to men so pronouncedly in favour of aggressive and socialistic trade unionism as are tho members of the present Government.