The Sun MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1917. A UNION LEVY.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 926, 29 January 1917, Page 6

The Sun MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1917. A UNION LEVY.

Is it legal for a union to enforce a levy to provide assistance for the dependents of those who have been sent to gaol for publishing seditious statements? This question, with two others, is raised by a correspondent in a pertinent letter which appears in another column, and the points raised are. worth examination, in view of the time and (he attendant circumstances. The writer of the communication referred to states that, in the case of one union called upon to make a weekly contribution towards such a relief fund, many members are strongly objecting to the levy and as other unions will shortly be called on to decide the same question, he is concerned

as lo the legality or otherwise of the arrangement. He suggests that those who sympathise with the lawbreakers should make themselves responsible for assistance to their dependents, and, accompanying the hint is a reminder that certain militant oflicial elements in local tradeunionism turned a deaf ear lo the appeals made on behalf of the stricken Belgians. Presumably if is these folk who have been instrumental in binding unionists to enforced payments for the support of the misguided sedifionisfs, and we can understand the feelings of the patriotic Labourite, who is not rvn antimilitnrist, Ihut prompt the protest and inquiries we publish to-day. Our correspondent roundly condemns the system of control by a socialistic-few which makes possible a levy which is repugnant to a large number of good unionists, but it seems to us that he and his fellows have a certain responsibility in the matter. It is unfortunately true thai in the majority of cases the business of the larger and more important unions is left in the hands of a relatively small body of men, who have seen to it that the union executive is comprised of fellows of their own kidney, if the true trade unionists were not too apathetic or too careless lo trouble about placing sound men in the executive positions, the more noisy and militant section, which is in the minority in many cases, would not be able to gain the ascendancy in the control of union affairs. It is of no use our correspondent pleading that doctrines preached by militants at the meetings are so repugnant* as to keep the hue trade unionists away. ITheir remedy is obvious: let the true trade unionists interest themselves in union affairs sutticiently to see that, if the militants are in the minority they should be in a minority on the executive. The real trou-

ble is plain, and has been so for a long time past. The majority of members in most unions will not actively concern themselves with the administration of affairs. How, then, can they reasonably raise a protest when socialistic/ally inclined union officials and their following, acting in accordance with their beliefs, "frame rules and strike levies that are abhorrent to those whose ideas do not run along the same levels"? As to whether a union, on a majority vote of a minority of its listed members, is acting within the law in enforcing a levy for the purpose cited, that is quite another mat-

ter. It is a dillicull point for the layman to decide, but if il was worth while, the legality of the demand might be tested by the refusal of a number of union members to pay the levy imposed, it may he, by men who could see no justice in the claims of the Belgians.