Review of Revi^^s, Ijll'-'-j. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



AX UNDEMOCRATIC DEMOCRACY. 



• Professor Priin "' writes : — 



t;nio:sists asd ^'o^--^:xIO^^STa. - 

 The merest glance at some of the measures current 

 111 various mirts of Australasia since the advent of 

 the Labour Partv is sufficient to prove that the New 

 Democracy, as it" loves to be styled, is extremely un- 

 democratic. New it certainly is from a democratic 

 point of view, since one of its main planks is the 

 denial of the verv fundamental principle on which 

 Democracy is based— equal opportunities for all. And 

 this is the more surprising as the party wliich advo- 

 cates it, and which has succeeded in getting it judi- 

 cially enforced, is wholly recruited from the ranks 

 of the workers, and is naturally therefore suppo.-^ 

 to represent the interests of those who toil. Yet that 

 the very contrary is the case is apparent directly we 

 examine what this party has really done. It calls 

 itself the Labour Party; but it is very inappropri- 

 ately named, since its member.s are mere puppets in 

 the hands of the Labour Unions, whovse yie\vs they 

 endorse, whose orders tliey oh-ey. and wha^e bitterest 

 enmity and persecution they incur when they break 

 loose from the yoke. But the Labour Unio-is only re- 

 present a very small proportion of the workere. prob- 

 ably not more than 20. or at the most 2.5, per cent, 

 of the whole of the manual labourers of the Common- 

 wealth, and it is almost solely in the intei-ests of th-s 

 small section that a large part of the labour legis- 

 lation of .Australia is based. Very niany of the 

 workers object to join the unions, which are hot- 

 be<ls of Socialism, and whicli advocate principles to 

 whicli the more independent of the worker* are op- 

 posed : but unless they do so they stand small chance 

 of getting employment, since the Labour Unions have 

 succeeded in getting measures passed the result of 

 which has been to deprive large numbers of their 

 fellow-workers of the means of obtaining a livelihood, 

 to impose fines on employers for daring to employ 

 those wlinm they prefer, to prevent men from leaving 

 the Union for indefinite periods when thev have once 

 joined, to destroy the la.st .shred of liberty which the 

 workers formerly enjoyed, and to turn them into an 

 ibject body of slaves. This may sound like the 

 frothiest of unprovable rant to some of my readers, 

 yet it is almost an under.statement of the actual facts, 

 and every point can be proved by reference to recent 

 arbitration awards, from which the real aims of the 

 Labour Unions can be accurately gauged. 



PREFERENCE TO TINIO^^STS. 

 Paragraphs referring to this pernicious principle 

 are frequently published in the press, and it has been 

 made the subject of denunciation by public speakers 

 time and again: yet it may be safely asserted that 

 the great bulk of the people have very little idea of 

 what it really means. It is difPcult to reali.se the 

 full sisnificance of a principle which provides that 

 until all the members of a T'nion have been supplier! 

 with work, no one outside the Union — however com- 

 petent, however desserving. however large mav be his 

 f;imi!y or great his needs, or however much his trust- 

 worthiness and excellent character may commend 

 him to an employer — will be allowed to earn his 

 bread in that particular calling. Yet that is the 

 practical effect of the principle as laid down by 



Judge Cohen in the ca.se of the Newcastle Wharf 

 Labourers' Union in 19112. and in giving judgment in 

 1104 ill )■( Wild, who was fined for having employed 

 a non-Uuionist. the same Judge further directed 

 that, so long as theie were meml>ers of the I nion 

 competent to do work required to be done, and ready 

 and willing to perfomi it, they must be employed, 

 the question of competency being for the Court and 

 not for the employer to decide. Then there was the 

 case of tlie Sydney hairdresser named Channell in 

 1903, who very naturally refused to dismiss an em- 

 ploye with whom he was thoroughly satisfied, and to 

 whom he was paying the highest wage, at the dicta- 

 tion of the Labour Union, and who was taken before 

 the Court and compelled to sack the uon-Unionist 

 and employ .someone else. But a far more startling 

 case occurred in the- same year, when a Sydney un- 

 dertaker named Byrnes employed a man named 

 McDonagh on an emergency, and, as he had proved 

 his efficiency, wished to retain him. In order to com- 

 ply with the clause in the Award, which prevented 

 him from permanently employing a non-Unioni.st. 

 Byrnes gave McDonagh the option of joining the 

 Tfnion or of leaving his employment. McDonagh ac- 

 cordingly applied for admission to the Union, was 

 refused for no other reason than that there were 

 several members of the Union who wanted the job, 

 and he was accordingly deprived of the opportunity 

 of obtaining brejid for his wife and family. And his 

 employer was actually fined, although the Judae ad- 

 mitted that he had made every effort to get 

 McDonagh admitted into the Union, and had endea- 

 \ouied to the best of his power to comply with the 

 award of the Court. 



"TRICKY, T^^DERHA^^) A>T) DISHONEST." 



A precisely similar case occurred a few weeks ago. 

 when a man named O'Dwyer, thoroughly competent 

 in every way, was refu.sed admission into the Sydney 

 Wharf Labourers' Union on no reasonable pretext. 

 Judge Hayden characterising the action of the Union 

 as ''tricky, underhand, and dishone.st." But the 

 climax wa.s reached in 1904. when the same Union, 

 having obtained all it wanted from the Court, in- 

 cluding a settlement of wages and preference to 

 Unionists, at once closed its books and refused to ad- 

 mit another member, thus turning the Union into a 

 clo.«e guild. The action of the T'nion was denounced 

 by .Judge Cohen as ■' undenincratrc and tyrannical in 

 the extreme." and the award was amended so as to 

 make the preference clause inoperative unless the 

 rules of the Union permitted competent persons of 

 good character and sober habits to join the Union 

 without election. The cases cited above, some of 

 which were use<l with great effect by the Hon. X. K. 

 Ewing in his recent electioneering campaign, prove 

 to the hilt the utterly undemocratic character of the 

 New Democracy, and the futility of looking to the 

 Trades' Unions and their puppets in the House for 

 any real amelioration of the lot of the workers as a 

 whole. The failure of compulsory arbitration was 

 clearly predicted bv the Strikes and .Arbitration Coni- 

 mi.ssion in 1S9I. wha^e wise and unanimously-arrived- 

 at recommendations in favour of conciliation and 

 voluntary arbitration, which have prove{l so success- 

 ful in England and the United States, have been per- 

 sistency flouted by the superior wisdom ( I ) of Aus- 

 tralian legislatoi-s in recent years. The genuine 

 Democrat would not only oppose to the very utmost 



