PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8298, 29 November 1906, Page 5

PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—ln your leader of this morning, in reference to the dispute between the Otago Trades Council and the Association, you so distinctly advocate compulsory preference 1;o Unioniste, that J would like to put before your readers the employers' side of the question, You accuse employers of fighting against preference merely from foice uf habit. Ie uofc s ' : - Employers object to preference on principle, as interfering with the liberty of both master and man. All men, fortunately, do not hold exactly the same views whether as to Unionism or other matters. Many of our best tradesmen do not, and cannot, believe ia Trades Unionism as at present constituted. The manifesto you quote accuses these independent men Df meanuess in lakinc advantage of Union wages and conditions. He does not take advantage of them; they are forced on him by the Union. First-class men, whether Unionists or NonUnionists, usually earn more than Union wages. Do you mean to say that because a man cannot see his way to sink his, individuality and join a Union he does not approve of, he should not be paid the anme wages aa the most. Incompetent Unionist? It is absurd! Now, what would happen if compulsory preference became law. •The Uuicus would immediately close their doors and become close corporations. Even now the Arbitration Court finds it necessary only to grant preference in certain awards, with a proviso that such preference will onlj continue in force so long aa the Union will admit, at a reasonable fee, any tradesman of good character who applies. Nearly all men believe ia Unionism ai a principle but many cannot see their way to join so long au the Union is used merely as a machine for forcing np tbe wages of one particular det ol men regardless of all others—and limiting the number of youths who may learn the trade as apprentices. Why is it that in nearly every application for an award the Union demands, as a minimum wage, the highest wages tbe public (through tho employer} can afford for first-class workmen? —for it is the public, not the employer, who has to pay the inorease. All men are not equally capable, yet the Union wifh to force the employers to pay equal wages to capable and incapable alike. Let the Unions recognise that all men are not equal, and classify their members into giades, and no will [then not find the same objection ou the part ef first-class men to join them. If the Unions would adopt such a constitution that all would be willing to Join, and would admit' All applicants who apply, the objection to compulsory preference on the part of employevs would fall to the ground. All men being then Unionists, ttie employers' choice would not be restricted to a few, whether good, bad, or indifferent. ?He would know from tbe clsssification of the man by the Union just what he could do, and what wages he would have to pay him. Such a system of j classification would,-1 think, also be hn incentive to every man to do his best, and strive to get promoted to a higher grade.—l am, etc., S. E. WRIGHT, Sec. Waiiarapa Employers' Assn. Masterton, November 28th, (Reference is made to this letter in our leading oolumns.—Ed. W.A,)