THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8297, 28 November 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1906.

The Otago Employers' Association and the Trades Council of the SBme province are at logger-beads. At the recent anuual meeting- of the Employers' Association j the President, Mr J. O. Thomson, delivered an address, whioh has caused the Labour Party to issue a manifesto, the tcne of which cannot bo" commended. The manifesto itself oon tains in places a gcod deal of common sense, but it has been issued in a bitter spirit, and some of tbe assertions and oommenta are simply absurd. The manifesto, however, is very muoh to the point in regard to preference for unionists, and in this matter it must be admitted that the < Labour Party have a good case. The manifesto reads as follows "Again we afik the employers or anyone else to tell us how the Arbitration Act is to be worked without unionism. It is admitted on all hands that it is a good Act, and surely even the lffcic of members of the Employers' Association will reason it out that those who make a good and beneficial piece of legislation workable should reoeive consideration over the man who 'by his non-action makes that Aot a dead letter. Mr Thomson likens a union to a friendly society. There is no analogy between the two unless unionists get preference. In a friendly society a man only gets what he pays for. If he is outside a lodge he gets no benefit. Not so the nununionist. If he is outside tbe union be gets the same wages and tbe same ameliorated conditions as the unionist, although he has not paid anything for these, anfl he is

mean enough to take them. We want an analogy betweeD a lodge and a trades union in that: every* one who receives benefit shall pay for that benefit. Do yea see the point, Mr Thomson? This is all we ask, and saiely there is sound reason and common sense in it. After ail, why do the employers fight so hard against preference. Theli field to ohoose from will not be restricted. It will be eularged to a greater extent than it now is in nany awards. We have preferences (of a kind) given in many awards now, and wo hear no complaints about Ik hindering the employer in tho conduct of his business." After all why do the employers oppose pra'erenco to unionists? It woald seem almost that they do s r aa a matter of habit, and are quite uuable to help themselves—that they are, in faot, in this respect the viotims of habit? As ttie Olago Trades Oouncil states preference is given in many and, tor our own part, we are inolined to think that instead of making it oompulsory for employees to give preference to unionists, it would be a better plau to amend the Arbitration Act in the direction of making the awards of the Court to apply only to unionists. The Unionists claim with a good deal of trath thai; they made the Arbitration Act and contend, therefore, that they should not, in a measure of Bpeaking, be deprived of the fruits of their labour, bat if the benefits of the Act applied only to unionists, there is no doubt, that all the workers would speedily become unionists in order to share in those benefits, and thus the Trades Councils would attain their object without forcing employers to give the desired preference; at least that is how we view the question.