The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1909. THE UNION BOYCOTT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 458, 17 March 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1909. THE UNION BOYCOTT.

Mr. Hogg has cut so poor a figure as Minister for Labour since his appointment that we feel some pleasure, in view of the criticism which we have had to administer to him in the past, complimenting him upon his generally sensible attitude towards the deputation from the Furniture Workers' Union that waited upon him on Monday. It is true that he is still a littlo hazy concerning the functions;of the Labour Department. At one moment he told the deputation that it was "a Department established to help you"; a few minutes later he was declaring that "the object of the Labour Department was to protect, not one side alone, but both sides—to protect the men who had sunk their capital in manufacturing industries, and the men they employed as well." It should be added that the second, and sound, view was the one which governed his unsympathetic, reception of the case presented to him by the deputation. When he has had a little more first-hand experience of the ways of modern trades-unionism, he may follow his predecessor's example in ranging himself on the side of equity. It . is worth noting, by the way, that as a private member Hit. Hooa claims to have 1 been a whole-souled supporter of the law which, now that he is bound to- consider its effects, he can'recognise as a fruitful source of injustice, unreasonableness, and harmfulncss to industry. But our present purpose is to notice the light , which the deputation throws upon the - spirit which has been encouraged in the trades unions by_ the privileges bestowed^

on thom by Parliament. Ifc may seem a littlo late in the day to question the propriety of the principle of "preference to unionists," but no unprejudiced person can have read the report of the deputation to Me. Hogg, or the discussion which took place in the Arbitration Court yesterday, without feeling that the working of preference to unionists, whatever may be said in its favour, is having some highly undesirable results. The Minister was only wasting his breath, we are afraid, in warning the deputation that "it is dangerous to rush to extremes," and in expressing his opinion that the unions should not "seize every opportunity to drive the employers before the Court." Many of the unions unfortunately have grown to consider themselves privileged beyond the necessity for moderation or diplomacy. Not only by successive legislative charters of license, but by a systematic servility in the Government's administration of the la- j bour laws, unions have been encouraged to press their, powers to the utmost. The very fact that membership of a union is in most trades a condition of employment is, in itself sufficient to subject labour conditions to trades-union control. The unions can hardly be blamed for making the fullest use of their special powers, even when it takes the shape of &uch oppressive action as met with the disapproval of Mb. Hogg on Monday; and so long as preference to unionists is made a governing rule of industry Mr. Hogg is not likely to realise his dream of "harmony among all classes of workers, whether they are unionists or not, and between Capital and Labour." The non-unionist will always be treated, while the present conditions stand, as a person who is "too mean to pay a subscription to benefit tho workers in the trade." It is a matter for surprise that this view of the non-unionist is held by Judge Sim. In his defence, it may be urged that as the President of the Arbitration Court, and the final judge in ■industrial disputes, he is bound to read the "preference" clause as a kind of excommunication of any man who happens to be a non-unionist. But what kind of law is that which can be quoted in justification of the view that a man who prefers to rely upon himself, and to keep his individual freedom, is an unclean thing who cannot be touched without defilement?

The Judge was quite clear in his expression. "They want the benefits of the awards without sharing any of tho burden. It is mere meanness; there is no principle in it at all." Does tho Judge really mean that the only "burden" on the worker that is worth mentioning, as a balance to his privileges, is his weekly payment to the union? Have we all been wrong in supposing that any benefits in an award are the incidental results of justice in the Court's finding? Must we believe that justice cannot be done unless the unions have fat reserves'!, Nor was this Judge Sim's only lapse. ' Mr. Geentell contended that "employers should not be compelled to force workers into a union," and the Judge replied: "There would be no compulsion about it. All'the employers need do is to say: 'I decline to employ non.unionists.'" "Which means, i£, anything, that the non-unionists can starve"'or'join the union. The Judge has simply mado clear, in one short sentence, tno'facfc that "preference to unionists" is simply developing into the ..union boycott. We have even reached the stage at which the President of the Arbitration Court openly expresses the view that • a man should be denied tho right to earn his bread at the vocation ho has been accustomed to follow unless he surrenders his rights as a' free man and becomes a unionist. Our radical friends may spend a little time with profit in reflection upon the next stage of development in industry.