The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1910. TRADES-UNION LIMITATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 861, 6 July 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 1910. TRADES-UNION LIMITATIONS.

Although the Government has refrained from any specific declaration of intention with respect to the Arbitration Act, there is reason to believe that special vigilance will be necessary to check trades-union aggression in improper directions through the medium of any amending Act that is brought down. Every yoar, tho Act of 1908 and its apparent sternness- towards strikes notwithstanding, Parliament, as a result of pressure on the Government, has increased the already unexampled powers and privileges of the unions. If anyone will take the trouble to compare tho position of the unions just after tho passage ofthe original Arbitration Act with their position to-day, he will_ not fail, we aro'sure, to be astonished at the extraordinary extent to which the country _ha's surrendered _ itself to trades-union rule. Yet with all its strength the labour trust, as it may properly be called, is not yet all-powerful. On somo points tradesunionism is not in a position to say that its strength is perfect and complete, and on'these points it'is-mani-festly reaching out for _ further power. Preference to unionists has, for all practical purposes, been established as a cardinal rule in industry in this country, but even this great asset is not considered sufficient by many of the unions, although publicists and Governments everywhere regard this rule as tyrannical, and contrary, to the individual freedom that is the basis of all sound modern societies. The unions now desire to have it established by law that unfinancial members of unions shall rank with the pariahs who do not belong to unions. The Minister for Labour is favourable to this idea, which is objectionable not only for its endowment of the unions with a further measure of power over the individual worker, but also for its conversion of the law into a sort of trades-union bailiff.

The Minister has.also given a sympathetic ear to the demand that the Arbitration Court shall be made subject td Parliament. He has not yet gone, the length of promising that \yhen a union is dissatisfied with an award it can appeal to some, less independent authority, but the tendency is all that way, and nobody who has paid any attention to the progressive character; of Radical innovations can doubt that the breaking down of the authority .and independence of the Court is the end of which Parliament's encroachment upon the Court's jurisdiction is the beginning. Another illustration of the direction in which Parliament will be forced, unless the danger is realised in time is afforded by Me. M'Laren's proposal to grant to trades-unions statutory authority to spend their funds in any manner they please. This matter, which was raised in the House yesterday, was referred to in tho Legislative Council last Friday by Mil. Paul, who shares Mr. M'Laren's views. h\ reply to a. suggestion by Mr. Paw. that he should look -into the matter Dr. Findlay replied: "I am entirely with you in your contention, but I think the decision of the House of Lords was right." (The reference is to the famous Osborne case.) Even to those who know Dll. FlNDlay as a dilettante Socialist it cannot but be surprising that as a King's Counsel he has failed so signally to appreciate the central point of the House of Lords' decision. This was, not that a strict regard to the letter of the law showed that the Walthamstow Union had acted _ in contravention of the statute in using its funds to pay members of Parliament, but that such payment, for reasons sufficiently stated by' the Court of Appeal, was contrary to puJilie pnliey. It is as curious as it is satisfactory, that Mr. Miu.au better appreciates this point than biu learned colleague. In referring '

to the matter yesterday, he took up what, considering the Kadical opposition he had to face, was a commendably firm stand. Trades-unions, he_ pointed out, were recognised as existing for a definite purpose, namely, the improvement of labour conditions by collective bargaining; and limits to the freedom of tratlesunions were required in order that men might not be forced to assist in a propaganda of which they might not approve. Mr. Millar also, we arc glad to note, brushed aside the silly quibble that the principle of the Osborne decision does not apply to "industrial" unions. Though the Minister's position on this special question is unimpeachable, it is necessary that any amending legislation should ba carefully scrutinised for weaknesses in other directions. No one is desirous of preventing the legitimate efforts of the trades-unions to better the conditions of their members; but it must be clearly recognised that there is a limit which cannot be exceeded without clanger to the unions themselves and to the whole community.