TRADE UNION LAW

Southland Times, Issue 20148, 7 April 1927, Page 6

TRADE UNION LAW

It is to be hoped Mr. Baldwin will agree to the Liberal proposal that a Royal Commission should be instituted to conduct an investigation before the Trade Dispute and Trade Union Bill is taken any further. Some amendments to the law may be desirable, but the Bill now before the House of Commons carries the changes so far that the measure has become a straightout challenge to the Labour Party, and while Mr. Baldwin may be able to secure its passage by the use of his overwhelming majority he will undoubtedly suffer in the country. His position in the House of Commons is unassailable and it is safe to say that personally he enjoys the confidence of most men in the parties arrayed against his own; but his declarations urging the nation to seek industrial peace in co-operation, calling for mutual confidence, have been betrayed by these legislative proposals which seem to owe their existence to the extremist section of the Conservative Party. During the General Strike it was announced that such a challenge to the nation was illegal and those directing it would be punished. As a matter of solemn fact those who participated in it were punished by the nation’s response to the challenge, which was far more effective than the fining of any of the leaders. The General Strike having been discredited, the Government now proposes to legislate to make such a strike illegal, but the clause effecting this is somewhat dubious in its terms, so that the unions fear its employment to prevent the calling of strikes that are legalised ait present. That picketing should be restricted so that it cannot be made intimidatory in character is a view that will be generally endorsed; but here again the clauses must be carefully drawn if they are not to interfere with legitimate persuasion and appeals to non-strikers, which

are recognised as among the privileges of those who in Britain choose to make use of the strike as a weapon in industrial warfare. No great hardship can be occasioned by insisting that the unionist who contributes to political funds must give his assent in writing, particularly where it is recognised that the payment of political dues is an individual act, beyond the scope of the objects of the trade union as a collective unit, but though we have seen in New Zealand the advisability of keeping Civil Servants from affiliations with other organisations, the decision to insist that local authorities are not to recognise preference to unionists, while apparently not unreasonable, will be interpreted as a direct attack on the organisations, because the need for these prohibitory restrictions is not so real if the Government persists with its special penalties for breaches of contracts made with public bodies. The aim here is to discourage interference with the public services during industrial upheavals. Undoubtedly the Bill is the outcome of the Government’s experience in the General Strike, but its introduction at this stage does not seem to be judicious, because this challenge to the Labour Party will serve to heal breaches which have been widening since the General Strike was called off. Mr. Cook and his Communist friends will welcome this measure just as heartily as the blindest extremist of the ranks behind Mr. Baldwin.