LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE NEED OP REVISING TRADE-UNION LAWS
I.To THE EDITOR Or TRR "SPECTATOR."
Sin,—On March 16th you kindly published a letter from me (under the name of " Onlooker ") calling attention to the need of revising the trade-union laws in the interest of the mass of the members themselves as well as of the public. Since then
events have tended in a remarkable manner to enforce the need of such a policy. It is becoming more and more clear daily that (to quote the words of a lending article in the Times of April 8th) " the question now is not one of miners
against owners, or both against the public, but of miners against miners and against leaders." The object of any honest and courageous Government should be to break up the oligarchy which has been tightening its grip on the throat of
the unions and to restore the democratic control which is the. right of the men. Two of the most powerful influences towards this end are (i.) to give to the men full knowledge of bow their money is spent and (ii.) so to regulate the method of voting that the opinion of the mass of members may be
assured of making itself felt.
Under the Trade Unions Act of 1871 it is provided (Section 11) that accounts shall be kept audited and sub- mitted to a meeting ; also (Section 16) " that every member of and depositor in any such trade union shall be entitled to receive, on application to the treasurer or secretary of that trade union, a copy of such general statement without making any payment for the same." So far as I have been able to ascertain from inquiries in various quarters, this provision is practically a dead letter. The men do not know how the money is being spent. It has been publicly stated, e.g., that "the men of the North Wales Miners' Association are greatly dissatisfied that the payment of one week's strike pay is all they are likely to receive. Although last year the miners subscribed £13,807 to the union funds, they only received back in benefits £7,984, a sum of £3,819 being absorbed in management expenses."
If the men are to be fully informed of their own affairs these accounts ought to be circulated and published like those of a railway company or a joint-stock bank. The members at any rate, and I think in. existing circumstances the public also, are entitled to know, e.g., how much is paid to delegates and representatives and who are the recipients.
Let us take the case of a Labour M.P. who receives a salary as a miners' representative and represents a constituency con- taining a large number of miners and also a large number of operatives who are thrown out of work and half-starved by the strike. I am assured that such cases exist; if so, a member of Parliament receives a salary to advocate a policy which is diametrically opposed to the interests of a large part of his constituents. If these things are happening the public which is the chief sufferer is entitled to know the facts.
As regards the ballot, I am assured that the general method of taking a vote is by issuing to all members a ticket having " Yes " printed at one end and "No" at the other. The voter tears off and places in the box the word representing his vote, but I am informed that, in some dis- tricts at any rate, he is compelled by the union officials to display on his coat or hat the unused half of the ticket, thereby making it quite clear how he has voted.
Another point to which public attention should be directed is Section 4 of the Conspiracy and Protection to Property Act of 1875. Under this section it is provided-
" that when a person employed by a municipal authority or by any company or contractor upon whom is imposed by Act of Parliament the duty, or who have otherwise assumed the duty, of supplying any city, borough, town, or place, or any part thereof, with gas or water wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of, service with that authority, &o., . . . knowing or having reason- able cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to deprive the inhabitants of that city . . . wholly or in part of their gas or water, he shall on conviction . . . be liable either to pay a penalty not exceeding £20 or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding throe months, with or without hard labour."
As we have now seen how the very evils provided against in this Act are threatened in an exaggerated degree by a ooal strike the provision should certainly be made to apply to miners—and probably to railways also. As I stated in my previous letter, the publication of accounts, the regulation of ballots, the abolition of " peaceful picketing," the restoration of the liability of union funds for injury done, and some strengthening of the law against those who advocate sedition and breaches of contract are essential measures in the interest, not only of the publio, but also of the workers them selves.—I am, Sir, &o., JOHN MITERAT. 50 Albemarle Street.
Previous page
