PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 22 December 1925, Page 10

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

SHOULD BE SAFEGUARD TO COMMUNITY. Of the many questions surrounding the regulation ol : labour none has beeu more persistently canvassed tuau tua-t ol : prcicrence »n employment- to Union members. lNotwitustunuiiig tile, amount of attention that has ueen devoted to the consideration or this important subject, however, no complete or satisfactory explanation has appeared in support or tne validity oi any claim to tins particular privilege, and at tlie present taut there seems to be .n evidence no stronger reason lor its maintenance tnau mat or a vaguely suggested expediency. I’i-oin the side of those desiring to est:n, .sii unionism upon ti.c *.iunge»o possible foundations, it appeared that tlie buttress ol pieiereneo would eievate tlie unions to a position oi comparative stability and dwarf competition from non-unionists into a negligible quantity. Apparently it was interred that, the granting ot this particular concession would bring about sueli an atmosphere of content that strikes against the conditions from time to time imposed upon labour would entirely disappear or, at any rate, be greatly. diminished. This inference has not been justined by results. A curious feature in connection with the granting of this pnyi.ege is that no equivalent seems to have been given in exchange —none seems to have been even suggested —and hence a great undisputed principle has once again been submerged in tlie tortuous currents of expediency. The privilege of preference is one of unusual importance in that it practically disqualifies all applicants ior employment outside the subscr.bing members of the union. It is this far reaching condition'that is today the chief element in the maintenance of unionism, and the true explanation of .the arrogant attitude assumed by labour upon many recent occasions. A bewildered community is now asking how it comes about that notwithstanding the privilege of preference illegal strikes do not seem to have diminished to any sensible degree, and why many qf them appear to arise from exceedingly trivial origins. In addition to th.s a certain amount of suspicion attaches to the fact that, despite the denials of union officials, illegal strikes appear to be the result or concerted action, and this suspicion deepens into a more or less ve.i grounded belief that the men are upon occasions acting upon definite instructions conveyed to them from time to time by some persons apparently interested in the continuance of labour disputes. It is not surprising that, as a result of these harassing tactics, tlie wisdom of granting such a privilege as preference is again being actively canvassed, and that to-day there are many advocates of the policy of withdrawing the; privilege, 'which, it is stated, has not only . failed to bring about the oxnected contentment, hut

has actually aggravated the evils it was intended to, at.ay. If tlie soundness of tlie principle of exacting in exchange for a privilege some form of service that can be effectively maintained be admitted, then the way seems clear to suggest a remedy that may have the effect of restoring the* lost clement of control. i The application of this principle could be made without apparent difficulty, and with only a slight amendment of the existing Jaw, ir the unions, to which the preference lias been aeorded, | were obliged in return for tins pr.I vifege to accept the responsibility of | control, it,' would be the’ duty of the . union confronted with an illegal strike to cancel forthwith ,the membership

of the strikers, who would immediately'.become hatred front • eiipfoynient under the very rule of preference, with had sheltered them wlu.e obixhent to union control. it ban scarcely be supposed that- in the face of su;li a rule any worker or section of workers, would create an illegal strike without grave consideration, since the penalty of being placed outside the pale of preference would etril) the ; worker of the most prized of his privileges. If the union failed to exercise its function in discharging recalcitrant members, it would be exposed to de-registration upon proof of the fact, at the suit of any party entitled to make such aplication. Here again, the liability to de-registration would bo one wli.eh no union would lightly incur, since the consequence would entail such unwelcome results as the loss of office by the union officials; the possib’e loss of the union’s accumulated funds, and last, but _not least, the loss of preference to all members of the union. In these circumstances it is not likely that the union would run the risk of de-registration. if the union or its I officers were to foment ail illegal strike the union itself wou'd bo liable to deregistration under proof of the fact at the suit of any party entitled to institute the necessary proceedings. Thus the first act of the union would be to disclaim responsibility for the strike in order to preserve its own existence, and the next would be to exercise ’its i function of disciplining the illegal j strikers. • I’lie intention of the modification of I the statute here suggested is that the ' result of a bleach of the law should be ! known beforehand without any doubt ' or uncertainty, and that the ‘ remedy 1 for such a breach should follow inline- 1 diately as an automatic; consequence. 1 In the lace of this plain direction no union under honest and effective guidance woujd contemplate a. breach of ; the law, since there would be nothing ! to gain by such ail act, while any union i recklessly or dishonestly conducted j would be courting disaster, ami sooner } or later would come to a well merited I

The effect of the proposed rule' would be. to give to'the.* 1 community a. greater sense of security in the more certain, control o( the unions, which would in sveh unproved service render to the eomyiun'-ty a lair equivalent for the privilege of preference. The status of the unions would be enhanced in the more certain control of their members, who would be unable without risk of penalty to act in defiance of tile union organisation. if these conclusions are warranted, it would have to be conceded that preference to unionists is otic of the most powerful engines that the community can possess, if properly flanked by requisite authority, and that to bring about its repeal would be a regrettable error entailing the hazard of a precarious track through the uncertain waters of political shoals.