STRANGE UNIONISTS' INCONSISTENCIES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 794, 18 April 1910, Page 4

STRANGE UNIONISTS' INCONSISTENCIES.

Sir, —How frequently do! wo,.find Labour Unions' condemning competition in industrial matters as though, it were economically indefensible and improper? If the principle • of competition bo wrong in this matter, winch I "take leave to doubt, then it must be wrong .in many other instances, a few of which I ask your leave to .mention!.. For instance, what is the object of ..examinations for the. legal, 'medical, naval, military, teaching, and other scientific professions but to ensure that the most competent, and those only, shall . bo allowed preferment? Is not this in ,every instance.a severe.form of competition? Does any sane man condemn it? Is it not a benefit to every'community that the best and brightest intellects should occupy the foremost places in every sphere of life, and so raise the standard of. each? Now. take the unionists' standpoint, eliminating competition. How and by . what means can a satisfactory standard be established?, Presumably by being unconditionally acoopted and admitted to membership, and by paying the weekly levy. Of course I admit that each one has learned Ills trado, but what then? Are there not in all trades good, bad, and indifferent workmen? To put all these on a level is absolutely unjust, ' but that is exactly what happens under union rules, and our so-called arbitration laws. Fancy putting Lord Kitchener and tho latest promoted drum major 011 tho s.amo level because both liapponed to be soldiers, or a Lord Charles Beresford on a level with a midshipman on the Powerful! It is at this point I differ from the unionists. In tho case I have cited superiority his to be proved by competition; ill aB unionists' cases equality is simply assumed, and that is precisely whoro tlio.v are at fault. Coming now to purely industrial matters, where tho whoio of the interests of the community arc affoctcd, competition • is very frequently beneficial to tho very peopi'o who stoutly deny ovory form of it. If, say, a ring of butchers wero to fix the prico of moat at fivepence per pound, and another person wero to start and sell at threepence per pound, that would bo an instance of competition. I wonder how many unionists would still prefer to pay the foraior prico, and ignore the advantages to ho gained by (Jio latter 'f Even 1 in manufactures, say of boots, clotlmig/ote., where, improved machinery,' close : supervision,; keen judgment'in tiho making of purchases of raw material mtablo a fow to outstrip othc-re in the,' industrial race,' tho gen-

oral public usually benefit by sucli competition, which, we are told, "is tho lifo of trade." '

Then comcs tho question of labour, which, after all, is th 4 real issue, ■ I fancy the most bigoted unionist will avail himself of all the advantages to which I have referred, and rightly so; but ho draws tho line here, while condemning competition and capital as well. Tiie trite saying that-the labourer is worthy of his hire is still true, always will he. The weak point ' lies' in tlio just application. Let us, for example, take the trade of bricklaying! where tho number of bricks laid affords an excellent illustration of the application of the competition principle, or the.lack of it. lam told that an expert tradesman can lay 2000 bricks a day, others loss expert 1 1500, 1000, or as low as 600. Clearly it would be wrong to restrain the export man, if He chose to exert himself for his own benefit by laying the largest number. It would be equally wrong to pay a man the same amount for laying 1000 "as if he had laid 1500. Tho result is that uniformity of pay tends to restrain the endeavours of tho clever man, but does not develop the capacity of tho inferior ones, while it lowers generally the effectiveness of all. The object apparently is the hours to bo worked, and tho rata at which any given kind of labour shall be performed, leaving the effective results of well-directed effort out of tho consideration altogether. If the Almighty,' in His wisdom, had created mankind of a uniform standard, of equal • height, of equal weight, of equal intellect, of equal inventive, con-structive,-effective effort, then the. uniform day and rate of pay would • hay© been its natural complement. • But we know that such is not the case, and the question is whether the Most High, with His universally accepted diversity, or the unions, with'. their vainly attempted uniformity, is right. Another inconsistency is their denunciation'of monopoly. At this'point lam in full agreement with them. It .is just where they begin to apply themselves in support ■ of that principle I differ from them. For instance, _ a trust or syndicate manipulating wheat, cotton or any other natural product, when backed, up by immense capital, always imposes on a community a higher rate than would be justified by; ordinary trade profits. It is a menace to the people, a conspiracy against' their wel-being, : The unions, very properly protest against such, but while doing so'completely ignore the fact that their own combinations have precisely the. same effect on the masses, a raising of prices beyond tho normal level. •

Again, what is. preference to unionists. but. a, monopoly for the especial benefit of a certain number? But, unfortunately, the evil' does not stop hero, they seek to restrain others from doing that which they definitely refuse to do . themselves, and cover with very opprobrious epithets anyone wJio may seek to exercise.his individual.right. How very inconsistent is such' action when alleging the right to work; surely the right to work, which, as a matter of fact, as a principle is not denied, does not include the right to restrain-others from working if so disposed? Here,, then, are two gross viomions of equity. First, tho imposing of undue burdens upon the people, tho second talcing away the power to bear such burdens by rofusiug tho .vety , rights of others' .they so loudly claim for themselves. I am aware the justification is that they aro entitled to take'such steps to better their condition. I suppose J. D. Rockefeller,and party probably use tho same argument. ''

■ The fact is, that both are conspiracies against the common I 'weal and 'as such should bo restrained by law. Unionists, unfortunately, seek to obtain their: object 1 by: combihation, compulsion, and so-called arbitration.law, instead of by merit. If workmen wore classed according to their efficiency no one oould complain,, each.',would" g&t what he was entitled to. . Does anyone "seriously ■ complain .because, there, are in the teaching profession ■ .those in class Al, .and down to ' E.V.,;or ; below,', experience and merit aloße ; ,determine their positions, and so it should in..all classcs of labour. Let the unions see to it.— I am, etc., AJAX.