that paid-up members of any organisation have a right to know how their organisation is working and what the leaders of that organisation are doing with their money. Any organisation, especially one as large and important as the BIU, has a duty to be seen to be open and responsible.

This newspaper also thinks that a government which cares about all the people has a duty to ensure that its citizens are not being badly treated by any legally established organisation which they may join. Establishing trades unions by law clearly says that the government of the day agrees with the creation of the union and undertakes to the people that the union is acceptable and that it will see that the union is properly operated. A union is not a private business and it is not a charity. A union is established by law to benefit its members.

Yet Labour Minister the Hon. J. Irving Pearman is quoted as saying, wrongly we think, that as long as the BIU complies with its own constitution, the way it manages its funds is "not an issue for Government intervention''.

Public questions are bound to arise about any organisation where large sums of cash are involved, especially large sums of cash which are not explained. As examples, the BIU spends some $827,000 on union salaries but does not detail those salaries nor reveal how many people share in that $827,000. Nor does it explain how or to whom they allocate some $882,000 in union "expenses''. Are the expenses for trips abroad by the Union leaders? Are they disguised as expenses to supplement salaries? We do not know but that is what happens when there are no explanations.

If there are 20 employees at the BIU, and it appears there may be less, then their average salary is over $41,000 per year and their average expense allowance is larger, and, put together, if they all get expenses, employees each receive an average of some $85,000 a year. If all the employees are not receiving expenses, then the hierarchy may be receiving a great deal more in expenses, as they do in salaries because, clearly, not everyone is receiving as much as $41,000. Surely, in a public organisation which spends its members' contributions, an explanation of that spending is public business.

It is important to add that people join unions for protection, protection of their jobs but also protection of their welfare. The BIU seems to do very little to protect the welfare of its members and pays out practically nothing in benefits.

For the year ending September 1993, a hard recession year, the BIU paid out $200 in strike pay; $3,470 to members seeking employment; $380 in sick pay and $18,274 in superannuation and education upgrading pay.

They have now told Sonesta Beach Hotel workers, who are being laid off this winter as the hotel is upgraded, that they cannot look to the BIU for help.

Yet, for the September, 1993 year, the BIU took in all but $2 million in members' dues, fund administration fees and profits from its gas station.

What does seem clear from the BIU financial reports is that the union invested far too much money in real estate and that the BIU is not good at running theatres, and has trouble covering its expenses and therefore has no cash flow to help the members. But that does not explain two huge sums for both salaries and expenses which the membership has to bear.