The Recognition of Unionism. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2004, 21 July 1892, Page 33

The Recognition of Unionism. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— l notice in the Home telegrams that Mr Dibbs, tho Premier of New South Wales, and Lord Brassey, in speaking at the Congress of Chambers of Commerce on the UOth ult. in London, denounced the folly of employers in refusing to " recognise unionism." Now even if this be a piece of party clap-trap, it seems to me that these gentlemen before using expressions of this kind should define what} they mean by recognition of unionism, .or else learn what is the meaning attatched to it by the ordinary union or nonunion workman. We, in Australia, are a little in advance of England in union matters. We have gone through what our fellow subjects of the old country are about to go through, and they may perhaps profit by our experience, though it appears just now as if every blunder made by the leaders of the labour unions in Australia, which led up to our great maritime aud shearers' strike, is being repeated in England, as if our display of wrong-headed stupidity were only a rehearsal for the greater drama. Our disaster is serious enough. Even with our small population and almost unlimited resources it will be yeara before we recover, aud in the meantime there ia want and starvation on every side, but if the tactics of the labour leaders here be repeated in England, and the imbecility and cowardice of the Government there bo cs great as was that of ours in New South Wales, tho disaster will probably bo irretrievable. Australia was saved from utter "ruin by the courage, capacity, and self-sacrificing determination of the Queensland Government. The claim made by the labour unions for " recognition of unionism" is simply that employeis shall recognise the right of the union executives to exclude non-union men from working at any industry which the unionists take under their control. Let employers as a body recognise that right, and they at once establish for the executive of the unions a tyranny over all workmen more absolute and grinding than was ever exercised by any autocrat or Czar. They place the executives of the unions in a position to refuse any man who disobeys their orders the right to live in his own country, and in making slaves of the workmen they also enslave themselves. _ If unionism were recognised in this way, which is the aim of the new unionists" and the only concession refused by employers, then expulsion from his union would make a workman a pariah and an outcast in his own country, and to declare an employer "Black" would have precisely the same effect on him. If employers as a body consented to " recognise unionism," they would have taken the first step towards superseding the Legislature, as there could then be "no king but unionism." This is clearly recognised in Australia now, both by tho better class of workmen and by employers, but it does not seem to he recognised in England, or we would not find such sentiments as those uttered by Mr Dibbs and Lord Brassoy in the Congress of Chambers of Commerce passing without comment.—l am, <6c, W. E. Abbott. Wingon, New South Wales.