THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1906.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8298, 29 November 1906, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1906.

Elsewhere we" publish a letter from the Secretary of the Wairarapa Employers' Association (Mr S. E. Wright) iu reply to an article which appeared iu our iasuo of yesterday, While Mr Wright'd letter is oO an interesting oharaoter, and while ha, probably, correctly expresses the views of the ae3oniatad employers in regard to certain matters, his letter can soaroely bo regarded as a reply to our artiole, tor the writes 1 asoorta that wo hold certain views upon several questions to whioh wo made no reference whatever. Mr Wright says "you so distinctly advocate compulsory 5 preference to Unionists, that I would like to put before youf readers the employers' aide of the question," and it is evident from this, that Mr Wright considers we are iu favour of compelling employers, during the e>isting state of affairs, to give preference to Unionists. As a matter of faot, in making such an assumption lie is quite wrong. If Mr Wright will carefully peruse the article he will find tho following sentence: "And thus the Trades Council would attain their object without foroing employers to give the desired preference." Surely the words "without foroing employers" oannot be read as meaning that we advocate compelling employers to give preference to Unionists? If, however, all em-

ployees were Unionists the position would be the same as it is now so far aa employers are concerned. Then Mr Wright asks: "Do yoa mean to say that because a man cannot see his way to sink his individuality and join' a I union, he does not approve of, he should' ribi be 'paid the same wages as the moat incompetent Unionist? ~ It, is., absurd.;' Quite so:|.,.l(;.v.wfli»ld;,b*> absurd, indeed, and we should feel varjv, absurd if ; we bad ever advocated anything of the kind, aud how Mr Wright, comes to credit us with such an expression of opinion we do not pretend to understand. We have repeatedly urged that there should be classification of employees. The danger that a minimum wage may become » uniform wage, aid that thus a proper incentive to employees to progiess in efficiency may be partially, if not completely destroyed, demands a system of classification. Complete unionism would possibly prove, and we venture to say that it would, a stepping Stone towards the objective,: which, we think, employers aa a whole would like to attain. The Labour Unions, generally Breaking, might certainly approaoh the employers in a more conciliatory spirit, and if they did the result would most probably be a more satisfactory cundition of affairs for both employers and employees than that at preseut obtaining. Something in tne nature of a compromise might be arrived at. For instance the employers might waive their opposition to preference to Unionists on condition that the Trades Councils supported classification of employees. Complete unionism and classification could certainly not be reasonably otjeoted to by employers. •