TEACHERS’ UNION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16320, 8 January 1921, Page 8

TEACHERS’ UNION.

PROPOSAL DISCUSSED BY CONFERENCE.

REJECTED BY LARGE MAJORITY. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, January 7. At the conference of delegates to the New Zealand Educational Institute the discussion on the proposed formation of a teachers' union was continued this morning. Mr F. L. Combs (Masterton) said; his branch was opposed to the proposal. He congratulated those who had brought the matter up for their courage, but said tho establishing of a union would result in great loss of membership. Ho would rather have the backing of public opinion than the backing of the Arbitration Court. Mr W. H. Newton, a non-official member of the executive, said that teachers did not require a union in the technical sense. It was the duty of teachers to lead and not attempt to drive tho people of New Zealand, and he felt confident the Institute was doing great work in that direction. There was at present a most sympathetic Minister in charge of the Education Department, and teachers should endeavour to aid him in every constitutional way. This cry for a union comes periodically, like measles or mumps,” said Mr G. W. C. M’Donald (Otago). He maintained that teachers already had all the necessary powers, a fact which was proved by the reforms the Institute had secured in years gone by—classification, superannuation, improvement in salaries and Court of Appeal. By following the old system to educate, agitate and legislate the Institute could do all that was required. “ What are we going to gain by becoming a union?’ ’ lie asked. “We don’t get all we ask from the Minister at present, blit we can't go along rn the belief that we would get aJI we asked from the Court, and if we don’t are we going to strike, or go slow, or what? ”

Mr X. H. S. I.aw (Auckland) pointed out that the formation of a union did not necessarily mean striking.. Auckland had never associated itself with the idea of unionism as understood by many of the speakers. Mr F .A. Ganny, a member of the executive, opposed the remit as it stood, but supported the first half. It was desirable that teachers should not be placed in a false position by leading the public to believe tlial they were associating themselves with labour unions as they existed to-day. Mr F. de Berry (Wanganui) pointed to the number of remits dealing with the constitution of tho Institute, and said these indicated that many of the braach.es felt there was not already existing the machinery needed to secure for teachers those things to which they were entitled. The discussion would do good by causing members of the executive to look to existing machinery and would cause them to use it in future to the best advantage. Mr F. K. Blakey (Auckland) said that- if the executive could show teachers any better system than unionism the teachers would welcome it. Unfortunately the executive seemed desirous of hindering tfle union proposal without itself bringing forward any constructive policy. He agreed with the suggestion of one member that the best thing would be to come within the scope of the Labour Disputes Investigation Act. The mover of the remit, Mr W. H. L. Foster (Wellington), in reply expressed regret that the chairman had decided to cut the remit} in half and put it in two parts. As far as lie was concerned lie did not car© what it was called so long as the executive was put in a position to enable it to go to the Minister or the Department with the demands of the Institute with a right to have those demands investigated by an independent tribunal. He admitted that trade unionism to-day was stinking in the nostrils of the people as a result of bad leadership, but no one could deny the fact that it was only by unionism that the working people had been able to have their just demands met. If the vote went against him. ho would abide by it, and, as always in the past, loyally support the Institute, of which he would remain a member unless he left the profession. The first part of the remit, “ That the time is opportune for the formation of a union of teachers ” was put and lost by fifty-five to five. Mr Foster thereupon withdrew the second half. Mr R. Harrison (Auckland) then moved ” That the executive be instructed to request the Minister of Education to set '’up a committee of six, three to be elected by the Institute and three to be representatives of the Department, with the Minister as chairman, for the purpose of reviewing all deliverances of the Department and all requests of the lntute, before final adoption of the same. Mr P. H. Hall (Ruapehu) seconded this new proposal, which was briefly discussed, the general opinion being that to set up such a body would mean the superseding of the “ present exexecutive of the Institute.” The proposal was lost on the voices.