LECTURING THE BOYS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3716, 12 November 1927, Page 1

LECTURING THE BOYS.

CHARGE OF POLITICAL NONUNIONISM. HOW THE “N.Z. LABOUR PARTY” OPERATES. A short time ago the Auckland Typographical Union circularised members of Parliament seeking an amendment of the Arbitration Act to enable Registered Unions to provide in their rules for the payment of- out-of-work, travelling, retiring, and mortality allowances in our opinion a very proper plea. In support of its case the Auckland Union stated:— “It may be mentioned that no portion of the union’s funds is used for political purposes, and the union is not affiliated to any political party.” To this statement of' the Union, Mr. 11. E. Holland, M.P., has taken strong exception. He has made it a text whereon to read the Union members a lecture v on their political duties, as lie sees them, and has stigmatised the declaration of this Union as “political non-Unionism.” Their can be little doubt that Mr. Holland is here using the term nonUnionisin with the object of scaring a body of Trade Unionists into the idea that they are doing something wrong. This is how he presents his case:—

“I submit that it is equally as unfair for any industrial, organisation to refuse to contribute its quota to the funds of Labour, while reaping equal benefits with all other industrial organisations from the efforts of the political unionists as it is for a. typo toj refuse to pay into the union while reaping the benefits won by the union.” By the word “Labour” here is of course meant the Socialist Labour Party of which Mr. Holland is leader. It cannot be held that lie is disinterested in making this demand for funds from an organisation which does not see fit to pay voluntarily. To reflect on the members of the Typographical by calling them nonUnionists is indicative of the procedure of this party towards those who do not wish to he bound by it hut to exercise their free rights as citizens. Let us examine this lecture* move closely. The Union is registered as an industrial body for industrial purposes. Its members pay into the Union for these ends and not for any other, whether political, religious or scientific. Is it just or right that their money, or any portion, should be paid over for other purposes than those they gave it for? Members of the Union have each and all a right to their individual opinions on politics, as they have on religion. Should these individuals be under compulsion to pay, even indirectly, into the funds of a political party that they may not even agree with? Surely it is more honourable for a Union that ;s not formed for a party political purpose to leave their members free in exercising their own judgment as to what party, if any, they will join. The plea of Mr. Holland that his party confers benefits or protection on members of the Union and should on that account have their financial support is a specious and misleading reason. Other parties at times perform work which affords protection and confers benefits on these individuals —are they to join and contribute to these parties also? If they do not do so cap they still be described as political non-Unionists? POLITICAL CONSCRIPTION. In another part of his lecture Mr. Holland says: “It reads too much like a tragedy of the Labour movement when an industrial organisation proclaims to both friend and enemy that in the matter of politics it does not stand for Unionism.” That raises the question whether it is not rather a tragedy when the individual citizen is not allowed to exercise his own opinion freely in regard to matters of politics. Democracy is supposed to conserve the rights of the individual elector. The ballot system was instituted to that end. The Trade Union which respects the free judgment of its individual members on questions of party politics is no proclaiming that it does no s anc for Unionism. It is declaring that it stands for indivdual freedom against compulsion. The in M lia industrial unionist has, as a ci lzen, the right to join any political combination he chooses. If Ins room is paid over to a party without his consent it is not unity but actua conscription which is being en or ced. In Britain it has been found necessary to put a check on 1 political ’ conscription by amending the Trades’ Union law to provid that Trade Unions shall not pay mto

a political party any money except what the individual members have signed to have so expended. Borne of the Unions have resented the political conscription shown in other directions and several large Trade Unions have taken a definite stand as non-party politcial organisations. In New Zealand there are many Labour Unions which arc not attached to any political party. It is also the ease that some of the individual members of Unions which pay into Mr. Holland’s party object to their money being expended in that direction. They have to pay, notwithstanding, what is virtually a political levy. Their money is conscripted for this purpose without their consent. Of course Mr. Holland would like to see every Union contributing to his party: He would be wiser not to press the matter for by so doing he will raise the general issue, would a Union which is registered for industrial purposes be allowed to expend any of its funds in directions which are outside these objects. Under the State established “preference clause” men are forced to join a Union before they j?an get employment. If to that industrial compulsion is added that persons must support a political party in order to earn their living then the element of conscription; and a measure of tyranny lms entered into the character of our democracy. No citizen should be coerced into supporting a political party. The individual should be entirely free to act on his or her judgment. Unless this principle is maintained the soundness of our democracy is endangered and the line of dictatorship is entered upon to the detriment of free citizenship which has cost a great deal to establish. (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League).