Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, AUG. 20, 1903. Trades Unions and Free Labor.

Manawatu Herald, 20 August 1903, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. THURSDAY, AUG. 20, 1903. Trades Unions and Free Labor.

The question of the effect, beneficial or otherwise, produced on the conditions of labor by the system of trades-unionism, is one which at various times comes prominently before the public. This was notably the case on the occasion of the recent railway strike in Victoria. The cabinetmakers dispute in Auckland also gave rise to some interesting speculations as to the effect of labor organisations, whether of employer or employee, in improving or injuring the relations subsisting between capital and labor. The effect produced by trades unions in their modern form are by no means easy to follow in their minutest details, and opinion seems to be equally divided as to whether these effects are good or bad, whether, in other words, the employee is really benefited by them or would be better off under the system known as. free labor. The advocates of each side of the question support their views by arguments which appear to be equally cogent. The Wue position to take up, it seems to us, is that both good and evil effects are traceable to the ; system of trades unionismthat while the system is kept within due bounds and. properly conducted its consequences are necessarily beneficial to both employer and employee, but that on the other hand so long as the system is directed by mere professional agitators, whose only object is their personal gain and not the welfare of their fellow-laborers, the system necessarily is and constantly has been productive of very serious and injurious consequences. To show that this is so it is only necessary to consider briefly the objects for which trades unions exist, and the measures that have usually been adopted by them to attain those objects. A trade union comprises two distinct ends—in the first place it is a kind of benefit society, from which its members in consideration of a small periodical payment, can obtain relief in case of sickness, accident, or want of employment. In so far as a union serves this end its effects are necessarily beneficial in encouraging reasonable thrift on the part of its members, in preventing them from becoming a burden on the public or the State, and in encouraging a prudent provision for sickness and old age. The value of a trade-union in so far as it is a benefit society has never been questioned. It is only when the system is viewed in relation to its more i prominent end that its opponents find any grounds for objecting to it. The principal purpose of a trade union is to regulate the relations existing between employer and employee, and it is in analysing the various ways in which these relations are regulated that we find those results of the system which lay it open to criticism. The first and most obvious purpose of a trade union in regard to the regulation of the conditions of labor is to increase the amount of remuneration paid to its members for their work. Up to a certain point this is perfectly justifiable. It is only when the demand is carried to excess that the evils of the system in this respect become apparent. When the demand is successful a three-fold injury results —an all-round increase in the price of commodities, leaving' the worker in the end in no better position than at first-—decreased remuneration to the employer for the risk he undertakes in sinking his capital in a business and for bis responsibility in its management—and worst of all to the worker the closing down of works, which sometimes happen. The answer with which the advocate of trades-unionism meets this objection is that a. union knows that it is in the interests of labor not to force wages beyond the paying point, a conclusion which unfortunately the history of the system scarcely warrants. Lack of space prevents us from describing in detail how these results come about, It is sufficient to say that such consequences could not follow from the system of free labor. We may here interpolate that the term “ free labor ” is a misnomer. No labor is .given free. What is meant is freedom of contract in respect of labor. We have so far touched on one only or the many important aspects of this question. If space permitted we might deal at length with other effects,of the system—the limitation of t£e output of labor, the diininu-

tion of competition to a minimum, the limitation of the number of persons employed in any trade, the endeavour which has become prominent of late to secure preference of employment to unionists, the hardship not infrequently produced in times of want by prohibiting a member of a union from accepting work at anything below the minimum wage fixed by the Union, the absorption of the individuality of a worker in the composite character of a union, the tax frequently imposed on a unionist in order to support movements in which he can have little or no interest, and the methods adopted by unions to secure their objects. With these subjects we may deal in subsequent articles. The conclusion which a careful consideration of the question leads to seenis to "be that up to a certain point a trade Union is not only useful but necessary to secure for the worker equitable conditions of labor and remuneration, and in this respect it has in the past done great good; but that at the present day its place is largely taken by legislation (no doubt to some extent introduced as a consequence of the system itself); and as on the one hand the value of and necessity forthe system is now less obvious than at its inception, so on the other hand its tendency, on finding its power, to carry it to excess, and to use it f ir purposes unconnected with its original objects (as was strikingly illustrated in the Victorian railway strike) lays it open in many instances to severe criticism, and gives weight to the opinion that if not deserving of abolition, its management as & whole is at least in need of considerable improvement.