UNION AND DEMOCRACY

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 75, 20 January 1947, Page 5

UNION AND DEMOCRACY

“BENEFIT OR BANE”

LONDON PAPER’S VIEWS

Commenting editorially on the position and responsibilities of Trades Unions in a twentieth century democracy the Daily Telegraph, London, says that these organisations can ■ be “a benefit or a bane.” Reviewing the address on the president to the latest Trade Union Congress the paper says:— Forty Hour Week

Many of the points in Mr Dukes’ presidential and policy address to the T.U.C. will command the heartiest assent. His reminder that “everything comes back in the last analysis to the necessity of increasing production” is an accurate verdict on our present economic situation, though highly difficult to square with the reported T.U.C. intention to press for a 40-hour week. His condemnation of unofficial strikes was unequivocal, and it can only be hoped that it will be better heeded in future. A highly significant warning that trade union in nationalised industries will have to take a new view of their functions and regulate their claims by a consideration of “general social interests” showed a lively sense not only of favours but also of dangers to come. Lord Citrine, in his speech on retirement from the post of General Secretary, also laid some emphasis on the responsibilities as well as the rights of the movements which he has nursed for nearly a quarter of a century. Major Part To Play Everyone will agree that the trpde unions have a major part to play in the development and conduct of modern industry. That is not a question at issue. What some people, however, ask with anxiety is whether the-modernisation of the trade union function of securing the best possible conditions for wage-earners may not result in making the T.U.C. rather big for its boots. Lord Cit>rine said that it was the “Parliament of Labour.” Certainly, but it is not the Parliament of the Nation. Moreover, it would be no part of any new or old function of trade unionism to suppress the liberty of the individual. The main debate on the “closed shop” is expected, but meanwhile the T.U.C. attitude towards it seem to go beyond insistence that should join. Mr Dukes said that “jurisdictional differences” as be--tween different unions “can be solved by patience and by industrial statesmanship.” But where are these admirable qualities in the process of saying: “You shall not drive a bus unless you belong to the Transport and General Workers’ Union,” or “You shall not work in an hotel unless you belong to the, General and Municipal Workers’ Union”? Embarrassing Element

There is a questionnaire and embarrassing element in the T.U.C. attitude not only towards the individual but also towards the Government. Particularly Xvhen the latter is Socialist and the House of Commons contains large numbers, of what are, in effect, trade union delegates the influence of the T.U.C. must be enoromus. It can 'only be hoped that it will be exercised with the responsibility advocated by Mr Dukes; for in irresponsible hands such great powers, divorced from responsibility all should be trade unionists to dictation of what union every individual to the electorate, would be extremely dangerous. It must not be forgotten that the repeal of the Trade Disputes Act means that the income of the trade unions from the political levy will next year reach an estimated total of over £250,000. To vast functional powers will be added great financial power. Therefore behind all the detailed discussions at this meeting of the T.U.C. lies the overwhelmingly more important question whether this organisation in a fair way '"to becoming a vast and disciplined power, will in the long run prove to be a benefit or a bane to the nation as a whole. ,