AN OPEN LETTER.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1922, Page 4

AN OPEN LETTER.

TO MEMBERS OF ON PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

RETURNS OF trades unions

FINANCE.

j} eM . sir :—We take the 1 iberty .of addressing- you, and all members of the J House of Representatives, on two j (questions whoh appear to us as neces- > sary to be dealt with by Parliament at j the earliest opportunity. 'These matters are first the lack of proper pro-, vision for safeguarding the funds of: | Industrial Unions; and secondly the . absefice of provision for protecting the j individual rights of Citizens under th e operation of what is known as the “preference to Unionists”,clause. TRADE UNION FUNDS. In Great Britain under the Trade Union Act each and every Union is required to supply annually to the Reg- . itrar of Friendly Societies a return j showing its financial position, with par- i tTcilii'ii's i'n respect to Income, and the [ details of its expenditure under sped- 1 god heads. These returns are open to j public inspection and in this way those j contributing to such funds may know i whether the same are properly managj ed or not. We find that here there i are no such provisions in the Industrial •Act under Which most of the Unions are registered. Ou r attention was recently drawn i to the balance sheet .of one New Zealand Union of workers, which disclosed this state of affairs:—Total Re- ’ ceipts £9,069. Credit balance to commence year was £1,634 and at close £BO6. The total expenditure £10,173. Wo find that approximately £5,500 was expended in salaries, allowances and delegates expenses. It must he evident that aii expenditure of 50 per cent of Income on management requires explanation. Other cases we have noted tire Unions of 1000 to 2000 menibers : charging high subscriptions and yet having practically no funds in reserve after years of operation. As a means of protecting the individual workers who pay into these funds we suggest Unit ah urgent need exists for Parliament to review this matter. ! PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. ! As you ‘are aware the question of striking out the preference to Unionists Clause from industrial Agreements and Awards, and of repealing the power now vested in tbe Arbitration Court to grant such preference has recently been under much discussion. This is evidently the outcome of experiences in respect to the operation of that privilege which are pressing linn • upon both employers and workers. Apart from the general question -of ; whether any such special right should lie allowed we desire to 'draw your attention to tli# fact that the full eornli- ■ tions upon which “preference” may be i granted have never been set out and | defined in the Act. Wc find that t !, i general unconditional preference is producing such results ns these: i (1) That money paid into some Un- ! ions for industrial purposes is, in j a degree, diverted to political j party uses. ! (2) That individuals are, through ; their Unions, used to advance j • a political party contrary to their j convictions or . desires. ’ (3) That special levies and charges j are in some instances imposed by Unions for general objects of ini dustrial and political welfare in j such a degree as t-o prevent cer- ! tain individuals from earning ; their livelihood.

Now Sir, we submit that such results are destructive of the personal rights of many electors, unjustified on any grounds of necessary State policy and inimical to the general political constitution of the Dominion. When the industrial legislation was passed allowing for the granting of preference to Unionists it was surely never contemplated that such should he allowed to operate in the direction of practically compelling some ('lectors to pay towards the support of a political party, or being included, without their consent as supporting political movements times of a revolutionary character which they totally disagree with. The argument that individual workers may if they so choose refuse to pay into their Union for any political purpose or can oppose the action of the Union iu supporting a political party has little practical value. In our country where the secret ballot is applied in order to conserve the electors’ personal right no individual should he forced to incur the liability of conflict with his fellows, and possible loss- of employment, to enable him to exercise his freedom as a Citizen. Our purpose in writing you is to emphasise the necessity which exists of legally safeguarding the great mass of workers in respect to the monies they contribute for industrial purposes, and protecting their personal rights as electors of t'he Dominion. We think you will agree with us that these questions urgently require attention. If you can see you way we should be glad if you will let us know whether you favour the suggestions herein made of legally requiring the deposit with the Registrar of Annual Returns of the Unions’ finances; and a defining and limiting of the terms and conditions upon which “perefercnce” may be granted so as to restrict its use and effect to purely industrial ends if the system of granting preference to Unionists is to bo continued. We are Sir, Tours faithfully. ARTHUR P. HARPER, National Secretary, N.Z. Welfare League. P.O. Box 92, Wellington, March 14th., 1922.