"PREFERENCE!"

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVIII, Issue 1045, 17 March 1910, Page 20

"PREFERENCE!"

HOTELKEEPERS’ NEW ROLE. RECRUITING SERGEANTS FOR J THE UNION. The “ preference” clause in the dormant agreement between the Auckland Hotel and Restaurant Employees and the Auckland Industrial Union of Hotelkeepers, is one to which public attention may very well be directed at this juncture. The agreement, as we have pointed out on more than one occasion, was practically forced upon the hotelkeepers “at the point of the bayonet,” and under such conditions that it would have been an act, of , positive, madness for the hotelkeepers to have refused compliance with' the demands made upon them. Those demands, as readers of this journal know, were preferred on the eve of the General Election, and under an implied threat that if they were not accepted the union would advise its members, as Mr. E. J. Carey boasted he advised his, to vote the “ No-license” ticket. The hotelkeepers were consequently in the position of the man who has his hands tied while the other fellow is punching him. The “ preference” clause of the agreement thus thrust upon the hotelkeepers provides, inter alia,

' (a) That all future applications by employers for labour of a permanent character • shall be made through the workers’ union in the first place, and (b) That if any employer shall hereafter engage any worker who shall not be a member of the union, and who within one calendar month after his or her engagement shall not become and remain a member of the union, the employer shall dismiss such worker from his service if requested to do so; by the union, provided there-is then a member of the union equally qualified “to perform the work required to be done, and ready and willing to undertake the same. Surely a more monstrous act of coercion was never foisted upon any body of employers than is entailed under this clause ! * • BUILDERS OF THE UNION. At the time this demand was made we are justified in asserting that not one-third of the Auckland hotel employees were members of the workers’ union. As a matter of fact, we believe the membership of the union was a negligible quantity. But its secretary had the ear of the Trades Unions, and it was well understood from the active part he played in the counsels of the Auckland Trades and Labour Council, that failure to comply with the demands he had formulated would antagonise the unions, and through them the workers, who would be in a position to retaliate in a manner they are unable to do in any other trade, by voting against the continuance of the licenses upon which the very life of the L.V. trade depends. Whatever the executive of the L.V. Association may have thought, therefore, they were compelled to look, first and foremost, to their own safety, and to agree to conditions which would have been re pudiated in almost every other tiDde. And now look at the irony of the business. Every hotelkeeper bound by the agreement becomes, practically, a recruiting sergeant for the union. When a man or woman goes to him for employment, he is compelled to ask him or her, “ Are you a member of the union?” If the reply is “ No,” the only course open to him is to refer the applicant to the union. He may vary the procedure by applying to the union first, on the offchance of its being unable to supply his wants, and failing its ability to do so

he may engage ,the applicant.. But then the union has the pull over both the hotelkeeper and his new employee, for if the latter does not become a member of the union within a month of his or her engagement, the union may demand chat another worker be engaged to displace the non-unionists.. And thus the hotelkeeper is actually made the recruiting sergeant for and the builder up of the union, and, incidentally, is made to pay the tolls levied upon himself and the worker by the paid agitator Mr. Millar, as Minister for Labour, was so anxious to see displaced. •.. • * HOW IT WORKS OUT. We feel justified in discussing this business at some length on account of its importance to both employer s and employees. Theoretically i.he idea of preference to unionists may appear sound; in practical operation it is otherwise. When the union secretary sends a worker along to an employer as a certified member of his union, it is assumed such member is of good character and fully qualified for the position he or she is expected to fill. But in more than one case that has been brought under our notice there is evidence that something is lacking. Take the case we cited the other day. \ man went to an Auckland hotelkeeper and asked for employment. The hotelkeeper was favourably impressed by the man’s appearance and asked '.he usual question, “Are you a member of the union ?” The answer being in the negative the applicant was told ’hat his engagement as a nun-unionist was out of the question, and he was referred to the union secretary. The man went along, joined the union and came back with his certificate of membership, which, in the eyes of the hotelkeeper, was regarded as prima facie evidence of the man's respectability, competency, and good character. But things were right on the surface only; the new hand ptoved very unsatisfactory and finally disappeared. After he had. .gone his <-m--ployer was astonished to learn that his late employee, of whose honesty he had very grave suspicions, was an ex-inmate of Mount Eden Gaol, and had newly completed a five years’ sentence. We do not for a moment suppose the secretary of the union was aware of this fact; but we do say he should have ascertained the character of the man before admitting him to the union. In another euse a barmaid was suspected of “ polling,” i.e., helping herself to a portion of the bar takings. When taxed upon the subject by her employer she coolly informed him that the business was too small, and that she “ couldn’t poll enough” for her requirements, and that if the business was bigger she would poll more. Her engagement ended on the spot. In yet a third case, the attempt was made to foist a man who has since been sentenced to three years’, imprisonment in one of the Commonwealth States, upon quite a number of hotel keepers who were applying for barmen; but they were all more or less distrustful of his appearance. The moral of all this is, of course, obvious, and before any future award is made the hotelkeepers should see to it that their interests are sufficiently safeguarded by the union in this matter of “ preference.” The clause as it stands should certainly be amended if it is not actually eliminated from the next agreement.