PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16829, 4 September 1922, Page 6

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS

The letter written by Mr H. Hunter to the Minister of Labour, on behalf of the drivers’ unions, asking that the principle of preference to unionists should be retained and extended, is a striking example of how not to do things. Mr Hunter evidently found it difficult to write on the subject without “seeing red.” He breaks off a critical disquisition on the aims and objects of arbitration to indulge in thinlyveiled threats of the sort which stir dormant opposition into active hostility. “ The boycott,” he says, “ is the most powerful weapon the workers possess. and it would perhaps be better for them if they were practised in its use. However, the fact remains that so far it has not been advocated by organised Labour, and we don’t want to start now. “ The boycott, as Labour has recognised, is a two-edged weapon, which wounds the smiter just as much as the smitten. If it were as safe as Mr Hunter believes, and was the most powerful weapon the workers possessed, it would have been used in the past with both frequency and effect. The plea for the maintenance of the present preference to unionists is reasonable enough, and it is not likely that, any extension will be made to provide for statutory preference. The Court’s clause, as Mr Hunter points out, enables an employer to engage a non-unionist provided the non-unionist joins the union within fourteen days from the date of his engagement. If the worker does not join he must be dismissed if the union can produce a member who is willing and equally competent to fill the position. The preference which Mr Hunter asks for means that no worker should be eligible for employment who was not already a member of a union. This is the statutory preference whicli the Ar-

bitration Court has consistently refused to permit. It would be union conscription in its most militaristic form—a worker must either become a unionist or starve. It is favoured by a large number of unions, but it is opposed by many workers who see whither it would lead. Statutory preference would place far too much power in the hands of the persons who are the head and front of the Labour movement. "With every worker compulsorily enrolled in their armies the little ccteries which are out to smash capitalism would he unable to resist the temptation to try a battle. The preference which is already allowed is sufficient to ensure that unionists will he protected against victimisation, and it should not he extended so far that it would put the unions in the position to carry out Mr Hunter’s suggestion of the boycott, practice in ■which he thinks would be good for them.