the Heview or Heviews. 



January, 1912. 



brothfiiy love and ;imity in industrialism should be 

 fostered. Therefore, says Mr. Fisher, the repre- 

 sentative of blatant unionism, "it is contrary to 

 public policy to recognise your Society in any 

 way." The fact of the matter is that if the prin- 

 ciples laid down by the Free Workers were accepted, 

 blatant unionism, with its unbrotherliness and 

 strikes, would go, and Mr. Fisher with it. The 

 members of the Lalx>ur Government could not live 

 politicallv in an atmosphere of industrial amity 

 and brotherly love. These elements would stifle 

 their aims. 



But when Mr. Fisher ventures on 

 Mr. Fislier oa legal ground he gets all astray. In 

 legal Ground. ],ig o„.„ ^^ords, he puts the Free 

 Workers' .Society out of the pale of 

 ■" recognition." because it has, according to him, no 

 legal standing. True, it requires conformity with 

 its constitution, and will not allow in its ranks anv 

 members of any societies or unions that stand for 

 the things it opposes. Of course it does. Other- 

 wise what is the use of con.stitutions and rules. 

 Societies are formed for definite purposes. Free 

 Workers .say that tho.se who stand for strikes and 

 violence and ba.se epithets cannot become members 

 of their society. Nevertheless they stand for the best 

 wages and the best conditions of work possible. 

 Other trades unions would refu.se admission 

 to a Free Worker because he stands for 

 fraternalism and amity and a fair day's work for a 

 fair day's wage. And they would be justified. 

 "Why, it is on record that unions have refused to 

 allow those of their own belief to enter their unions 

 because they were afraid that if they let their bro- 

 ther in there might. not be enough work for them- 

 selves, a dog in the manger policy. Keeping the work 

 for themselves, that is, those at pre.sent in the union, 

 has been the practice. Will Mr. Fisher go to the 

 logical conclusion of his statement and sav that 

 therefore "it is contrary to public policy 

 to recogni.se Trades Unions in any way " ? 

 The Free Workers' S(x-iety is opposed to " pub- 

 lic policy and to princijiles of the Compulsorv 

 Conciliation and Arbitration Act," says Mr. Fisher, 

 becau.se it confines its meml>ers to tho.se who support 

 its principles, and would not allow a member of a 

 body which opposed its aims to become one of its 

 memt)ers. That might be law, but how can it 

 ■equally be law under the same .statute for a union 

 to (-onfine its members to those who su|)port its 

 princi])les. and to " not allow a member of a bodv 

 which op])o.sed its aims to become one of its mem- 

 bers " ? Vou are strangely illogical, Mr. Fisher. 

 P. ssibl\ no union would .idmit as a member a Free 

 Worker unless he cea.sed to be such. If Mr. Pisher's 

 dictum be reasonable, then he should refuse to " re- 

 cognise in any way " every such union. But what is 

 ^auce for the unionist goo.se is not sauce for the 

 .L;.inder. The Society is actually registered as a 



Union under tlie Victori.ui law. Moreo\'er, what is 

 ■'public policy"? According to Mr. Fi.sher, it is 

 the interests of the Trades Unions and nothing else. 



And what shall be said of those 

 Sauce fur Unions which shut out of member- 



the Uotse. ^].,ij, f|^„,^ ^f ^^^-^^ ^^^,,^ ^^^^^^ ,^^_ 



order to keep a monopoly of work. 

 Surely these come in the category of those who 

 are to Ije cast into the outer darkness of unrecog- 

 nition. Not on account of contrary views, nor on 

 account of inability to pay heavy entrance fees, 

 but on account of a monoply (dreadful word) on 

 the part of those who have work and want to keep 

 prospective work in their own hands. No matter 

 whether employers want more hands. Never mind 

 if fellow workmen outside the pale of the Union 

 — but anxious to get in — are wanting work, and 

 bread. The Unions can carry on such heartless 

 practices, but Mr. Fisher would not consider such 

 action as opposed to "public policy," and would 

 sternly repudiate any suggestion that it was not 

 worthy to be " recognised in any way." No, the 

 legal .sophistry fails. In ])oint of law, Mr. Fisher 

 is wrong, absolutely wrong, and the plea of ex- 

 liediency remains. It is "public policy " to refuse 

 to allow "recognition"' to a society that aims at 

 bringing in the ideals of brotherhood, inas- 

 much as it would interfere with the revolutionary 

 party. The veil is too thin. Anylxidy can see 

 it. Preference to unionists is not preference to 

 unionist.s — it is preference to those who see no de- 

 sirability of friendly relations in industrialism, who 

 spread the doctrine of indu.strial hate. These the 

 Government will jjrotect. But it is a monstrous 

 thinj; to u.se the public funds in that fashion. Em- 

 l)loymenf by the Government should be open to all, 

 ability being the only password ; but that is a thing 

 that does not count with blatant unionism. 



During the month the Govern- 

 ment brought in an ill-digested 

 measure for the increa.se of taxation 

 on a list of imported goods. That 

 it is not satisfactory to those concerned is evi- 

 dent from the outcry from those affected. In 

 .scarcely any case does anyone seem satisfied. Some 

 of the se\-erest criticisms the Go\-ern.nient got cann' 

 from memliers of its own partv. The fact is, 

 that the proposals are crude and ill-considered. 

 How senseless they are one may judge from 

 a typical- case. There are no motor car manufac- 

 tories in Australasia, and yet the tariff on the 

 chassis of motors was pro|)osed to be r.nsed. The 

 effect would be that the chassis of a motor 

 would cost much more, .so much more that it woiilil 

 pay better to import motors complete rather 

 than make the bodies of cars here. Then^ 

 are splendidly-equipiied w<irks for body-making, and 

 the result of tinkering with the tariff just now 

 would be that hundreds of bodvmakers would be 



Fiical 

 Matters. 



