PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 April 1921, Page 4

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

It is a significant sign of the times that, the Producers’ Conference a-t Wellington should have passed a resolution urging the Government to repeal the legislation giving giving preference to unionists. There can be no doubt that when this concession was granted to Unionism, Parliament had not t'he slightest conception that it would develop into a weapon that would paralyse industry, lead to constant troubles—many based on trivial grounds—place in the hands of paid agitators a power inimical to industrial activities as well as to the best interests of the workers. Tn theory the protection of the workers against injustice by giving them the backing, of organised unions which would bring pressure to bear on employers to prevent the employed being exploited, carried out the principle of giving strength to the weak by means of combination and organisation, but in practice the unionists have merely exchanged one set of masters for another, with the result that, like the frogs in the fable, they find King Stork a more terrible tyrant than King Log. Moreover, they have parted with their independence, and though they have the power of the ballot the fear of the whip of their executives practically makes them slaves to the will of those Who rule the unions. It cannot be denied that unionism has done good service to the workers, but it is equally apparent that it has reached a stage when the true aims and duties for which it was evolved have become obliterated in the mania for domination, so that the anomaly is presented of an organisation which was created to eliminate domination, arrogating to itself powers far more arbitrary and tyrannical than could ever possibly have been wielded by the employers. Probably the worst feature of the preference to unionists law is the premium it places on inefficiency both as .to skilled and unskilled labor. It is amongst this far too numerous class of workers that are to be found the strongest and most blatant advocates of preference, and the most persistent fomentors of trouble. The efficient and expeditious men can always secure employment -and good wages, but the inefficient time servers and loafers would soon be elbowed out when there is a sufficiency of the better class of men, so that they have everything to gain by the shelter of unionism which sets the pace by that of the slowest worker. No greater injustice can be perpetrated than to compel thoroughly good workers to be dominated by conditions framed to benefit the inefficient and discontented. Unionism lias forced up the rate of wages, but has forced down the output, encouraged "stopwork” meetings, engendered strikes, increased the cost of living, 'held up national activities, and created huge losses at a time when such waste was unpardonable, frequently in order to demonstrate its power. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that employers consider the time has arrived when 'it is essential they should be no longer coerced by legislative sanction, but be allowed to engage the men Who will give the best results, whether they belong to a union or not. The granting of preference to unionists was a risky experiment, and, from an industrial point of view, it stands condemned, but whether the Government wiP have the

courage to repeal the provision remains to' be seen. That some effective steps must be taken to .place industrial matters on a different footing to that which at present prevails seems only too evident, and there can be no question that the time h'as arrived for legislative action. There is ample scope for useful work by the trades unions within certain legitimate limits, but present conditions are a menace to industrial peace and a bar to progress. In the course of his remarks on the domination of labor, which appeared in Friday’s issue, Mr. E. Maxwell emphasised the fact that within the ranks of Labor ‘There are many who are desirous of giving a fair return for the wages they receive, many Whose inclination is to work industrially, and to whom ‘filling-in’ time is objectionable, and many who are ashamed to receive their wages knowing how little they have done to earn them.” What is needed is to give such men a premium for their efficiency -and expedition. This can be done by grading the workers, skilled and unskilled, thus holding out inducements to efficiency. It is also necessary to eliminate the professional agitators, which would largely put an end to irritating go-slow tactics and strikes, and do away with the necessity for the present arbitration machinery, which has apparently outlived its usefulness. Mr. Maxwell’s remedy takes the drastic form of dismissal, with the penalty that those who do not abide by the conditions of employment are to be barred from further employment in the industry in which they were engaged. Such an extreme measure might lead to a general upheaval. No one wants that; but even a catastrophe of that nature may be no worse in its effects on the industrial and economic life of the country than the present industrial dictatorship and go-slow and irritation policy pursued by the extremists in power. The whole question, however, hangs on giving a square deal to both sides, and this cannot be done until preference for unionists is abolished.