WHICH?

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 288, 30 August 1920, Page 6

WHICH?

PREFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC

i ■OR "PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS"

(Contributed by tho N.Z. Welfare League.) ; r'Witli regard to tho constant _ indus* , teal problems that tihe public is being galled upon to faee, the league has been ; urging for some time past that the pub- ' lie's riehts in connection with tlicso ' 'fcli&uld Tiftve full consideration. Tho disi ' puting panics generally assume that : their rights 6hould come first. Certain ; militant Labour unions, swayed by syndicalist leaders, practically assert that they should have all the rights whoever . else. shoulders the .responsibilities. These people claim,"the right to strike"; .'the right of "preference of employ- : luont"; tho rights of forced agreements, and the rights to restrict trade, boycott i individuals who offend them or to perform. any acts of aggression' against tno |Y publio fit their own sweet will. i The thinking part of tho peoplo are 1 - beginning tt> realise that soma' cheeic I will have to be put npon this dicta- ; torlinl' i sumption of special rights on ) the part of-sections of people. When , one man's right becomes another man s t iwTo'r.g the needs of public order demand ■ a redefinition and) a limitation of flha '■ power that is proving an oppression. A , nation that has not lost its reason must recognise that public rljjlits come first. 1 Preference 'to the public means. faTr ' play to all individuals and groups, of, 1 which the publio is composed; whilst' ■ neglect of publio protection simply gives 1 Jifeenso to the most powerful and un- ■ scrupulous to tyrannise, deceive, '.ml ! overlord it over all o£hers;_ The Do- ' minion of New Zealand 111 its sympathy i for -the workers allowed Parliament) to ■ enact a. law which gave the Arbitnrtion ! Court power to grant "preference of i employment to unionists, which privi o j lego tho Court, liaa freely conferred. It- , 3s a privilege not n right, for surely ■under our Constitution each man has

as much right to work ns another. Tho I Imions have been built >up in membership and power by means of this privi- ' lege. There were 380 unions of work-ers-registered under tho Conciliation I Mtl Arbitration Act with a total of < 82,553 members in January of this year. I It Is 110 iise burking tlie fact that some of ' the unions are using thefr power : »ot merely for Hhe defence or betterment of their members' industrial con- ' ditions but to coerce, bully and overbear the public in, ways that enthil ; -general loss and hardship. In view of these facta we find that

: many aro asking, "Why should Parlia- ' anent, and the Court, give preference of employment to unionists seeing that ' it' simply enables fihem to abus« their power? In many quarters it is being i -urged that the constantly occurring stoppages of work, lightning and irritatita Btrikes and the general disregard of the

public welfare call for prompt Teview i, ,of the policy of gramfing "preference i "to unionists." In tho first place tho . -'privilege was giVen because it was deem- \ ed that the unions would uphold indus- ' trial peace and ensure tho public welfare by carrying on industry regularly And without disturbance. Since it is ' Becn.tthat instead of peace we have constant raids of warfare; instead of Tpason i and good faith we have petty outbursts ; of passion and the callous disregard of , .obligations; -no wonder that tho call is being raised ,to abolish ''preference to ■ \inionists." Tho public good and the ■ public's riglvti must como first. "Preference to the public" is the proper de- , mand. : v 'The- unions of workers would be wise 1 to consider this proposition, that unless they can definitely ensure that "prefer- ! crice tor .unionists" \nll prove in prac- | ice-"preference to the public" iOien, [ the call for the abolition of "preference to unionists" is bound to be raised. The. position i's that saue unionism must kill outright tho mad anarchistic i 6piriil-or-.be killed by it.