Preference to Unionists

Maoriland Worker, Volume I, Issue 6, 20 February 1911, Page 4

Preference to Unionists

What it should imply.

(By P. H. HICKEY.) Unionism, to be effective must embrace the whole of the workers engaged in the -particular calling in which the Union exists. Hence, we find the claim being; advanced by Unionists that preference of employment be given to their members. This claim of preference, though oftimes used as an argument to instance the '' tyrannical and selfish " composition of the unionist, is nevertheless necessary if the Unions are to have a voice in the fixing of conditions of employment. Its tyranny consists in the desire on the part of the Unionist to see to it that those who are reaping a benefit from the labour and expense of others shall be compelled to come within, the fold, so that they will not be a menace to the great body of workers by accepting terms which shall be contrary to those laid down by the Union. It is selfish only in the sense that there is a recognition by the mass of the workers that, unless they have a solid and united front, they are unable to meet on anything like equal terms the members of the employing class. The average citizen sees nothing " tyrannical or selfish " in compelling the workers to defend a country of which they own nothing, from the attacks of a foreign invader; yet by or through some mental blindness this same citizen cannot see the justice of the workers' demand that they shall have the right to compel the " non-patrio-tic " of their class to enrol themselves under tho banner of Unionism that they may more effectively cope with the invader —the Capitalist—upon their property—their labour power. " Tyrannical and selfish " demands, therefore, are necessary if labour is to have anything like humane conditions of employment.

Before it is possible for the seller of any article to fix a price upon it, it is necessary that he should control that article. Consequently, before it is possible for a Union to approach the employers for the sale of the labour power of its members, it is necessary in the first instance that it shall be in a position to control that labour.

Unfortunately, however, in New Zealand, at least, the average worker takes but a very superficial view deed of what preference implies. It would appear that he loses sight of that most important and never-to-be-forgotten economic truth—that wages have a tendency to fall to the lowest level, that whilst the standard of subsistence may regulate wages, nevertheless that standard can be reduced to* a much lower level than at present obtains, and vice versa. It would appear that the ordinary worker never takes into consideration the need of equally good conditions of employment prevailing in other trades and callings if his own standard is to be maintained. The claim of preference, therefore, with them can be classed as narrow in the extreme.

When the worker realises that it is equally important for his own welfare that the most insignificant seamstress shall receive a decent wage, and work under decent conditions, instead of being; a sweated slave, he will have gone a long way towards understanding how far-reaching preference can become.

How many Unionists to-day who, on going into a restaurant for a meal, to a barber for a shave, or to a tailor for clothes, ever bother "bo inquire what conditions of employment govern those engaged in these places? Fellowworker, do you ? Does not your duty as a Unionist convey to you something more than your own petty little Union ? Is your conception of its obligations hemmed in by your own particular calling? Did it ever strike you what would happen if all the so-called Unionists of this country, before eating their meal, having their shave, or buying their clothes, first inquired under what conditions the employees in these places were working, and agreed to go elsewhere if the conditions did not come up to the standard laid down by the Union? Did it ever strike you, Mr Union Man, that you could secure conditions for your weaker comrades that no court or parliament would grant in twenty years? Does it not even strike you that if Unionism is to be that all-em-bracing movement which we claim it to be, that our duty as unionists should be broad enough and noble enough to embrace all callings?

In some countries in which the writer has lived o where courts of arbitration and labour laws are unknown, conditions exist and wages are paid which compare more than favourably with those which obtain here. These conditions have been obtained by the Unionists adopting that motto which the Federation of Labour has also adopted :

" An injury to one is an injury to all." That spirit of fraternity, the grandest and noblest characteristic of

any race, is there seen in full play. Every Unionist, before purchasing his or her necessities, first inquires if the employers are Unionists. If they are it is proof positive that Union conditions prevail. If it is not a Union shop, even though good wages are paid, they go elsewhere, to where a Union shop does exist. To patronise a shop which etmploys non-union labour, to purchase any article made by nonunion labour is regarded as the most serious offence against the spirit of Unionism and the guilty one is heavily fined.

They insist upon preference to unionists. Wβ don't.

There is no great stretch of the imagination necessary for a New Zealand unionist to understand that with such a spirit of Unionism in existence the employer finds that if he wishes to do business he must do two things: first, treat his employees decently; secondly, all employees must be members of their Union. He must grant preference.

Apart from the everyday aspect of preference, by extending the scope of the Union and cultivating that unionistic spirit, it has other advantages of even "greater importance. From an educational viewpoint, how much easier it is to reach the ears of the workers and to explain to them the principles of Socialism when they are organised than if they were in bitter competition one with another. Unions should be economic schools., and all unions, to justify their existence, must give to their members a clear understanding of the economic basis of society. They must teach them that it is only by their own efforts, intelligently applied, that they- can win for themselves that justice which is their due.

Forty-five years ago Karl Marx said: " Trades Unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroachment of Capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla mar against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organised forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class, that is to say, the ultimate abolition of the wages system." /