UNION FUNDS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2203, 16 July 1914, Page 4

UNION FUNDS

NOT FOR POLITICAL USES

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

"COMPULSORY & PERPETUAL

UNIONISM" AND COMPULSORY POLITICS? The question of whether union funds should bo used, if. the majority of the union should so decide, for political purposes was discussed'in the House of itepresentatives -lasti night. The subject was', raised by. Sir Joseph Ward, who urged that the decision of the Supreme' Court, forbidding tho diversion of union funds from otlier than industrial union purposes, ought not to bo allowed to stand. Against this argument it, was urged'that under .preference-- clauses in awards unionism was practically .compiilsory, and that compulsory unionism ought not to entail : compulsory; politics.:' :.'* Sir Joseph' Ward said that ho wanted 'to direct the attention of the '. Prime ■Minister to the extraordinary position that had arisen oyer a decision of the -Supreme- Court,' which practically dc■prived unions'-of. .the right to do what they. desired with their funds. • If a ..-majority. was not allowed to make use of its'funds .when a:minority took exception,, then they wero going to disturb the foundation of organised unions. If the decision should apply to industrial unions then it 'should also apply to employers' (unions.,' They could not make ifish of one and fowl of another. If the same law was to apply to ordinary companies in New Zealand, as it ; was said did apply to unions, then no company oould long carry on its affairs. The Real Question. The Right Hon. W. 1?.. Massoy. (Minister of Labour) said the honourable, gentleman had spent some time discussing the question whether trades unions snould bo allowed to spend-their funds for political purposes. The honourablel member seemed to think it was ■ altogether a question of the rights of majorities or. minorities. It was not a question of the rights ofi majorities or minorities, but a question as to the .purposes for which trades unions we're established. AVas a trades union • an industrial organisation or a political or* ganisatiohi 1 , . ' . , • , Mr.i Payne: Both. Mr.. Massey: It is not. It is an industrial orgahisatiou and not in any sense of the word a political organisation, and as it is purely an industrial' organisation, tho majority have no right to spend the moneys oi tno minority.ior political purposes. The question, ho :continued,'had nothing to do with tho Arbitration Act or -with tlio ■ Arbitration Court.. If it Were'right tor a trades union to use funds ior political purposes, 6tireiy.it must be.nglit for any otuer organisation to do tho same —for a sporting organisation for instance. And no one, lie supposed, would suggest tliat a sporting organisation should' be able to nse its funds for political purposes. .Mr.'lsitt: They do it. . , Mr.. Massey denied tliat-this was so, and cited as another instance religious organisations. '..'"■■ ' Mi;. Payne and Mr, Isitt: They do. Mr. Isitt: Tlie Presbyterians ,do it. ■The Anglicans do ut. ; Mr. Massey said ho had somo knowledge of 'the Presbyterian Ohurch, and it any attempt 'was made to; use moneys of tnat Church for political purposes there would be at once a general', out-,, •cry in that church. JNor did he believe: any other Church would or could do this. The thing was not possible. . ■•■',' Mr. Brown :'• W'hat about'the lteform Loaguef , . •- Air... Massey: The Reform League is a political organisation, and tho members of it are all of one way of thinking. : Mr. Brown: Oh, no, tlfey're hot. What about the Bay of Islands? ■Mr.Massey: I don't say they are /ill of the same mind about ah individual candidate, but they are ajl'of tho same mind about the honourable gentleman. (Laughter.) - ' / ~' DoublerEdgod Arguments. .'■,' Mr. L. M. Isitt (Christchurch North) said that such a rule as'that laid down by the Prime- Minister would cripple trades, unions'-absolutely, ahd prevent Labour from" securing adequate representation in Parliament! i | Mr. W. A. Vcitch (Wanganui) disiputed the statemeiit that trades unions 'were'.purely industrial, and not at all political organisations. It.was necessary; if the workers wero to secure their ends;b'y political action that they should: combine. ,for: the purpose of sending representatives to , Parliament. ' The Prime ■ Minister's:'statement was illogical. .. Mr. W. -H: D. 801 l (Wellington Sulinrbs) urged that it was unfair to use the funds subscribed by workers, compelled because of preference clauses to subscribe them, for the support of political'parties of which those workers did not- approve.- He believed it was proper tliat ; workers should have a right to combine to ..secure rppre'sentation in. Parliament, but - for this they should have separate organisations. How, Mr. Bell asked,'did tho contention advanced by Mr'.. Veitch that majorities should epiytrol union funds square with his advocacy of proportional representation ? AyiiereJioiy:was his solicitude pppresspd minority? . .If tlio views championed by Mr. Vcitch prevailed they would hayo a 'tendency to falso 'representation in the House. . Mr.. Payne: .We havo it now I , Mr. Bell: Yes, sir. Grey Lynn is not properly represented. Mr. Payne: Bay of Islands! Coroniandei I ; \ Mr. J. M'Combs (Lji,telton) argued that under majority rule in a union tho minority in a union would not be in any worse position than the minority in a State. Whose the Fault? The Hon, F. M. B. Fislior said that the usual attack had been inado on tho Government in a statement -tliat tho Osborne judgnientand tlie judgmont delivered recently by Sir Robert Stout hero, were . judsnients engineered by the Tory Party. But that judgment of Sir Robert Stout had been based on the Conciliation Act of 1908, with which the present Government had nothing to do. It was absurd, therefore, for tho member for Christchurch North to say that these judgments wero based on the iiißCJiinations of the Tory Party. Intelligent members of tho public knew that it' was impossible for either party to influence that judgment. 'He quoted a case of abuse arising out of departure from tho rule that unions must use funds only for tlio purposes for Which the union was established. If. was the case of the Typographical Union, tho executive of which body had decided to vote £100 to the strike funds, although ■ the Typographical Union was not on strike and did not approve of tho strike. Some members of the union objected to the rote,'but tlio -money was paid oyer and they resigned from the union. Now, the union proposed to prevent- their resigning, or t:;■insist.on their paying £5 each before they were allowed to ieave tho union. That was tlie latest move. Before these men-got out they would he required to pay £5 cash to bo used for those objects which th'ny did not approve! Tho Court had not, ho said, expressed any opinion as to whether a union should use its funds for political -purposes, but had simply decided that the law did not now give a union that power. That-

I question that tho Court did not | raise was being raised now, and it was I a very big question. Such a state of affairs as that he had outlined in the case of- tlio Typographical Union would mean compulsory and perpetual unionism. And the restrictions put upon men by unions were Retting .so great and so strict that it seemed likely' to ho a very open question one of these days as to whether "Parliament should allow unions to put any move restrictions upon a man's liberty. If tlio Leader of the Opposition disapproved so strongly of this restriction on the uso of unions, why had ho not altered our Act to prevent such an iniquity hero? Tho Osborne judgment had been given when tlio honourable gentleman • was in power, with a huge majority behind him, and ho-had done nothing". Tlio party had continued to publish pictures of Sir George Grey, continued to remind people of tho late Mr. Scddon, and claimed the support' of tlio people because they had hung on to the coattails of Liberalism. ; Labour's Only Hope. Mr. T. C. .Webb was of opinion that the Government would be doing wrong if they upheld a proposal which deniedthe Labour organisations the right to use their funds as the majority ruled. Their only hope to fight an election was to save and build up their organisations. . , Tho Law in England. The Hon. J. Allen said that it was not true as was suggested that the full representation of Labour in Parliament w;ould bring about industrial peace. That was not the experience in other countries where thero were Labour Governments. So far as.the Osborne judgment was concerned, the case was even stronger in New Zealand against, the diversion of union fuuds from union purposes, for hero men were required by preference clauses to pay money to uaions in ordar to be permitted to earn their livelihood.- That wa,s not.so in England. ■ . Unions had an undoubted right to combin3 for political purposes, •but-if they wished to do it this should bo clearly stated in their constitution, so that a worker should know what his moneys were to be used for. In England it was now the law that the 'funds to be used for political purposes were kopfc apart from ordinary union funds, and were separately subscribed, and every unionist was not compelled to subscribe to tho political funds to maintain his membership of the xiuion. Mr. G. VI. Russell (Avon) suggested that so few members of unions would object to the" use of union funds for. political purposes that their opposition would be' inconsiderable. Ho believed that Mr. Allen's idea of the adoption of the English system would meet the wishes of the Leader of. tho Opposition, and ho hoped the Prime Minister would insert a clause in tho Bill empowering unions to. use their funds for political .purposes, with a proviso that any member who desired that his money should not be so used might withdraw his contribution to the extent.that it,would be iised for this purpose. This would got over tho difficulty. ;. Mr. Allen: You will do away with compulsory prcfefenco. (Mr. Allen did not make tho proposal made by Mr. Russell.) Mr. J. Robertson (Otaki) said that the'position as explained by the Minister of Fiunnco placed unionists in England in a better position than they wore in here. , Ho would liko to ask would ho advocate tho same principles here? .Mr. Allen: Yes, if you will do away ■with compulsory preforonce. Mr. Robertson: The matter of preference is for the Arbitration Court. He thought that a simplo alteration of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act would get'over the difficulty.. "At this stage, 0.6 a.m., tho discussion, which, was'not at all in point on the Dill'before'tho House (a Bui in the name of Mr. Hindmarsh, suggesting a very: small amendment to the Arbitration Act), ended abruptly, and the Bill was read a second time.