Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1909. COMPULSORY PREFERENCE TO TRADE UNIONISTS.

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVII, Issue 4464, 18 September 1909, Page 2

Te Aroha AND Ohinemuri News.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1909. COMPULSORY PREFERENCE TO TRADE UNIONISTS.

Thie above all—to thine own tel/be true, ind it mutt follow at the night the dag Thou cantt not then be false to any man Shaketpeare.

!©» Thursday 19th August, at Wellington, the Waterside Workers held a meeting at which some of the men uttered very strong protests against preference to Unionist*. One member—Mr McCann—said, "Until

the preference clause was removed they could have no proper understanding between master and man.” We look upon preference to Trade Unionists as one of the most pernicious and slavish of measures ever placed on the Statute book of a free people. As some of our readers may not know exactly what is meant by preference to Unionists, we will exp’ain it. When the Labour Party dominated politics a few years ago, and the Government of the day found it necessary to truckle to that party, a law was passed compelling employers of labour to employ a Trade Unionist in preference to a NonUnionist if he wanted one man and two applied, one being a NonUnionist and one a Unionist. If he wanted ten men and twenty applied, he was legally forbidden to engage Non-Unionists so long as Unionists of equal proficiency could be obtained. When a manufacturer wanted “ hands,” he had to put up a notice in his factory so that the Unionists could let their mates and the Union know and, if Unionists were obtainable, the master had to employ them. If two men applied, one a Unionist or the other not, the master might know the NonUnionist as a good and reliable workman and as a married man with a sick wife and a large family. For those reasons he might prefer to engage the married man, but the siDgle man, being a Trade Unionist could compel the master to engage him and reject the married man. Hence he had to reject the man he wanted and engage the man he did not prefer. To our mind it is slavery when a man is compelled to work for a particular master against his will, and it is equally slavery when a master is compelled against his will to employ a particular man. But such is the law, and we deem it a mischievous and vicious one, and we accordingly protest against it. So ought everybody. The theory on the Unionist side is : That the Trades Unions have done much good to all operative workers in getting legislation passed securing shorter hours, sanitation, better wages, protection against dangerous machinery, dining places for meals, seats behind counters and on trams, workers’ compensation and other things ; and that NonUnionist would enjoy those benefits without contributing to the expense of the Unions unless they were compelled to belong to them. Moreover, they might go and work for less than the Union rate of wages and thus lower the plane or grade of living. Doubtless there is some truth in some of the Trade Unionists contentions.

But there are two sides to all questions and ths Non-Unionist replies : that he has a conscientious objection against being compelled to join a Trade Union, that the Unions are not an unmixed good, because they have done much injury to boy-labour by unduly restricting the number of apprentices and preventing a father from employing his own sons except under the subterfuge of a “ partnership,” also that Unions have increased nominal wages but not real wages because the cost of living has gone up through their interference and they have caused old and faithful grey«hairei workers to be turned adrift when their masters would have liked to keep them on ; they also complain of the expense and officiousness of officials, and of the feeling of bondage or slavery under Unionist official dictation.

We deem preference to Unionists wrong in principle. “Six days sbalt thou labour and “if a man will not work neither shall he eat,” are the injunctions of Scripture and nature too. No Government has a right to prevent men from working. To prevent Non-Unionist labourers from selling their labour until | Unionist have first sold theirs, is as unjust as a law that would prevent Roman Catholic butchers from selling their meat until Protestants had sold theirs. NonUnionists have to pay taxes, are liable to be called upon to lay down their Jiyes for the State,' are bound to obey the hw, and have to maintain wives and ehUdren ljffp Unionists, and it is most unjust to place them at a disadvantage, and an inequality before the law. Adam Smith has truthfully said “ The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands • and to hinder him from employing hjs strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbour, is a plain violation of his most sacred property. It is a manifest encrouchment upon the just liberty, both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him-”