TRADE UNIONISM.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 571, 1 October 1920, Page 2

TRADE UNIONISM.

Last week this paper commented on the negation of democratic principles involved in all "preference to unionists" enactments, but we now note that some of our coontemporaries are seriously considering the abolition of trade unionism. In a letter to the Otago Daily Times Bishop Nevill questions the legitimacy of trade unions and similar organisations in the face of the highest law of the public good. He suggests that if it should appear that organisations which exist solely for the promotion of sectional interests act injuriously and perhaps even ruinously to the community at large, is it not the duty of the State to suppress them? It is acknowledged that the first duty of the State is to secure the protection, well-being and liberty of the population generally. Some may reply that for the State to declare such organisations unlawful would be for it to interfere unduly with private liberty. But the whole system of law, and of the establishment of magistrates and police to secure the proper administration of law, is founded upon the principle that the liberty of the individual is of necessity subordinate to the well-being of society, and I do not see that this principle is less applicable to combination of individuals for special objects than it is to separate individuals. The accounts contained in the public prints seem to make it plain that the labour section of the community under the domination of their unions are working so to extend and mobilise their forces throughout the civilised world that they may obtain power to overthrow the whole , fabric of society and to bring on a devastation even more ruinous than the national warfare in which we have been engaged. The power to effect a ruin would appear to be a sufficient reason for its accomplishment, and that in spite of the fact that the actors are themselves involved in it, as Samson exerted his strength to pull down the house under which he stood regardless of his own destruction so long as that of his enemies were involved in it. In proportion, then, as this threatened danger to the whole system of political and economic order really exists is it not the bounden duty of the State to attack the trouble at its root and destroy such unions by pronouncing them to be illegal? No doubt the practical difficulties in the way of such an aecompiisFment are great indeed. The invasion of Parliament itself by such n i»anisations has gone far to deprive the law-making power itself of the proper freedom, and few members of Parliament itself would be found bold enough to risk their scats by moving in such a matter; but I am persuaded that the majority of workers in the whole country would be glad to escape from the existing conditions and to allow the natural laws of supply and demand to work with freedom and elasticity. What they want is a leader and more thought on their own part on such matters. "I believe," he ' concludes, "that there arc not a few who already begin to see that the boomerang thrown by their so-called friends is already

returning upon them to the great danger of their receiving an almost fatal blow." The Otago Daily Times deals editorially with the same subject:— It would be idle to deny that the increasing number of those who are sympathetic towards trade unionism ' are disturbed in mind by recent ten-; dencies. While it is unwise to make i general deductions from special cases j only a blind and unreasoning optim-1 ism could overlook some of the gros-1 ser evils which are fastening on to ] trade unionism. History teems with illustrations of the corruption and ultimate destruction of ethical associations of men and women because of the apathy of the many and the cupidity of the few. Bishop Nevill raises the direct question whether it is not the duty of the State to suppress all organisations which exist solely for the promotion of sectional interests and which react injuriously and perhaps even ruinously upon the community at large. Trade unions, like all other institutions, can only exist permanently by consent of public opinion and can only flourish in proportion to their standard of usefulness. In many respects their history is worthy and commendable, but only present performances and future promise can give any organisation the right to live. If the trade unions suddenly adopted an anti-so-cial attitude contrary to the interests and wishes of the majority their continuance would be a public menace, and their past would be gf no consequence. For instance, if the irritation policy of a section of the miners' group became the'accepted policy of the minority of the unions, pre-sent-day society would be jeopardised and all would be made to suffer economic disadvantage. The effect of the existing law and the measure of protection which it gives to unions certainly places a strong weapon in in the hands of the more autocratic section of unionism. It is common lrnnwlpricre nn manv of the coal-min-

ing fields that a comparatively small section of aggressive men dominates the miners' policy. In some cases the policy of irritating stoppages is as distasteful to a majority of the miners as it is expensive to the workers outside the mining industry. Fortunately in many instances these eruptive social ills bring their own cure. For instance, the almost universal feeling of goodwill in the past towards miners in their efforts to improve their conditions is giving place to one of disgust at the indifference of the miners towards the convenience and interests of their fellowmen and women. It is being daily borne in upon the rank and file of the workers that the miners seldom or never consider the interests of any body of workers but their own. Such a spirit is contrary to the higher principles or trade unionism, and must, when generally applied, : spell the end of trade unionism, as an ethical movement. It was instituted to act as a corrective to a ■ tyranny which is past. It cannot ; live if it becomes simply a new tyranny. The great healing force in the ! J world of the future will not be a

jarring clash of selfish antagonisms —it will be the coming together of the various sections of society in a mutual effort to save itself in the great co-operative work of reconstruction. Then we have the following:— "Wharf Labourer," writing to the Dominion, says: "For many years I was a fr.ee man, but now I am a slave—body and soul. Like the spider and the fly, in the first instance I was hypnotised into the union web, a web that has now become a shackles, and has completely deprived me of all my former liberty. Knowing that the unions are swarming with spies, one has to keep one's mouth closed. If the Government would take a ballot to-morrow and ascertain our views with regard to compulsory unionism 4 they would find that two men out of every three of us would thank God, and immediately free ourselves from slavery."