ARBITRATION ACT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19144, 29 October 1927, Page 19

ARBITRATION ACT.

1 SUGGESTED REFORMS. VIEW'S OF BUSINESS MEN. Kei'.-rcia* L>i tliv Ai i>i< ratiun t'uiiri i v.as made at the eoiirerence ul thy Asj soeiuted Chambers of Commerce ye»terj (lay l.iy the president (Mr W. Maehin) I and the subject was subsequently di»I cussed by delegates. I "For thirty years." .-.aid .Mr .MaLhin. | "New Zealand has had an Arbitration | Court which has granted increasingly j higher wages, and imposed heavy re- ! strictions on business. Its effects were ! considered good while wages and prices I were .steadily rising; but now the tide ! has turned we are realising there is | something wrong with the system. ! "We need more production. 'J list a j little more and how much it is.' j Knough tu pay our way m periods of ; low prices and depression and make protit.s and savings when high returns come as gifts of'the gods. "Then revise the functions of the Arbitration Court, which curbs the freedom of spirit that makes for advancement, which limits production, which holds enterprise in shackles, •which increase? costs, and makes increases in labour to be dreaded, rather than welcomed. Questionairre. ".Recent investigation by Associated Chambers, seemed necessary; many voices were raised against the Court. A questionnaire was issued with 15 questions and sent to 1000 leaders in industry and public life, manufacturers, and merchants, builders, editors, farmers, Members of Parliament, Labour loaders, shopkeepers, and professional men. "Of tiie replies received. 57 per cent, considered Arbitration Court awards responsible for the economic disabilities of high overhead cost of production and "for insufficient production; 7 per cent, considered these awards partly responsible; 13 per cent, join in other causes as responsible; 15 per cent. gave, a direct negative to this. The balance did not reply to this question. Seventy-seven per cent considered the Court's power to impose regulations on industry should be restricted ; 5 per cent, stated that the nowers should be revised; 7 per cent, did not consider the Court's power should be restricted. The balance did not reply to this question. Fifty-nine per cent, considered the Court's awards were in some ways responsible for unemployment; 23 per cent, say the awards were not responsible; 12' per cent, gave i a qualified negative. The balance did ! not reply. Twenty-seven per j cent. considered that the Court should be abolished; 4i percent, considered that its functions and constitution should be revised: 26 per cent, considered that the Court should not bo abolished. The balance did not reply. Forty-two per cent, considered that' the responsibility for lack of adjustment between the price of primary and secondary products was due to -the fixation of wages by ( the Arbitration Court; 23 per ee.nt. gave a qualified I affirmative to this; 16 per cent, a direct ; negative to this; and 7 per cent, a I qualified negative. The balance did not reply. Seventy-two per cent, disagreed with the principle of preference to unionists; 15 per cent, agreed with the principle; 6 per cent, a qualified disagreement; 5 per cent, a qualified agreement: and the balance did not reply. "These are highly significant opinions which compel our attention. They indicate impatience with the regulation of the conditions and rewards of industry of a widespread character, which may develop into a general reaction The New Bill. "The new Arbitration Bili now before the House seeks to remedy matters. The changes suggested do not, however, go to the root of the matter. A change iu the personnel of the Court will not cure the trouble. The right to arrange payment by results with the present award rates as minima may possibly stimulate production in come trades and allow men the freedom to earn more money commensurate with their ability and skill, but I have my doubts about this. Ihe human : 'clock" in the workshop and factory will probably continue to regulate output as he has done in the past. "The exemption of the farmer will not give him much benefit, for he will still have to help to pay the award rates in the protected trades which produce most O P f the articles he buys, while he continues to supply hisr products to protected workers at the world's lower prices.

"Would Not Abolish Court." -Personally, I would not suggest abolishing the Court. I would make t an instrument for registering a min - mum wage in accordance with the ab - ity of each industry to pay. IJ is minimum would probably be less than today's award rates. ff „,„.„ n f th P "It should be a penal offence ol t e •west kind for any union or peison to try to limit any man's hours o work or output of work, and all men should be free to produce and earn as much as possible on results by their own agreement with employers. mferencf to unionists should be abolished The Court's mam function wouu then be to settle disputes on then merits While there are little children short of food and clothes, and women tending them amid the squalor or mean houses, ill-furnished and badlyequipped, while able-bodied men eat the insufficient bread of idleness or unproductive work, and eat out their hearts at the same time, it is foolish to limit output, to restrict hours ot labour, or hinder in any way cheaper or more abundant production. "Let us cease to teach our sons that work i* a curse, that the office and shop and warehouse are places from which we should trv-(as Charles Lamb once said)—to leave early m order to compensate for having arrived late. In short, let us reinstate m our voOabularv the word 'Strive,' iu order that we may win the economic prizes our Dominion offers." The Discussion. Mr A. G. Lunn (Auckland) moved the following remit:—This conference does not support abolition of the Arbitration Court. At the same time, it does consider amendment is callod for, and in particular the question demands consideration whether a Court of three independent members, one of whom should be an economist of note, is not likely to give more satisfactory results than the"existing constitution of the Court. In doing so. Mr Lunn held that the Court had continued to increase wages against the weight of economic evidence. He would admit that the Court had to a large extent reduced the number of strikes. Mr Lunn drew attention to the present depression, and said that there were several commercial houses which kept on employees for whom there was little work with the idea of preventing any addition to the ranks of the unemployed. It had to be realised that for many years the agricultural and pastoral industries would continue to occupy tho first place in New Zealand. At present there was a great allurement in the comforts and attractions provided in the towns, which meant that men would rather work there than in tie

{ country. But he was convinced that ! the primary industries would before i long come into their own. ! He wished to pa v a tribute to the ability of many of the trades union i ieaders in the" Dominion. There was i only one object in their minds, and i that, was to get an increase in wages, | whereas the business man was unable \ to concentrate to the same extent, ba-v- ---! >ng so many other matwrs to occupy ! his mind. lie considered that it would he better to have a lower minim" 1 " i wage in some cases than to have niat- : ten? as at present, which meant that ; I'li'.y a certain number of employees J could l»c kept in .jo',?. 110 thought ; that, tin.' time was oniin.;; when ttie i leaders of unionists should -tr at ;: round table conference to di.-cus.-. Tn ' ? I cji.-stion of economics. It was a tact ] the rate of now paid was rt i prolific cause .-f dissatisfaction and un- ! employment. ' "Not too late for Amendment." -Mr Machin said that it was not too ; hue vet to have the Bill considered. i Now was the psychological moment, and he thought that the views I conference- would be not«d by the <-*o\1 CTiiment. The adoption ot the remit was «- c " onded hv Mr H. V. Caughey (Auckland). -Mr A. 11. Mackrell (Invercargill) said that he understood that the views of the conference would be considered with great interest by the Government. He agreed that the Dominion was very much behind in up-to-date plant, but business people were afraid to invest capital in this connexion, hecause of the Court, which refused to allow employers to utilise the services of their men to the best advantage. He thought that the Court should continue its existence, but that its functions should be restricted in some respects, and enlarged in others, lo should also have an economist of note in its personnel. | Mr D. Sevmour (Hamilton) said thai, an effort should be made to put something constructive forward for the consideration of Parliament, and he would suggest that a small committee be set up to bring down proposals in this connexion during the present week-end. Mr .T. Mcl<ean (Greymouth) supported the previous sneaker's proposal to set up a committee. Mr .T. H. Richards (Startlord) said that the crux of the position was the effect of the Act upon the primary producers. He believed that every increase in the secondary industries was adversely reflected on the man on the land. Every increase granted h v tho Court should be considered in the light of the ability of the primary industries to meet it. It was desirable to have ! a hich standard of living, but at tho | same time it must be considered whej titer the conditions under which the I primary producers were working were ! such as to enable them to compete with j those in other parts of the world, j where the standard of living was not • so hirrli. He hoped that the needs of { the primary producers should be stressi cd in bringing the matter under the ', notice of the Government. i I Amendment of Doubtful Benefit. I Mr C. P. Agar (Chrietchurch) said the difficulty of the Arbitration Court was that wages were fixed on the needs of a 'man, his wife, and two children, rather than on production. That being so, lie could not see how the Act could be amended. Dairy factories were to be j allowed free trade with their employers, j but if the rest of the workers were to be protected by the Court, the dairy J factories would not really be free from j the influences of the Court's awards. No relief was afforded to the industry because no honest employer could say to his employee: "I'm going to give you ; a lower wage," when he knew he had to have the higher wage to live. Mr Lunn read a suggested addition to the remit, as follows:—"Any further : consideration of wage-fixing should be ] based on the wage which can be economically paid by tho primary producer." ; Mr Agar was quite correct in his con- j tention that if wages were at a certain j level in the town, it would not be pos- j siblo to pay a lower wage in the coun- j try, he said. Mr Machin said it was n golden op- ' portunity for them to convey to the j Government exactly what the business- j people thought. The most blighting effect of the Court was the premium it set on the limitation of output. He would like to sec a small committeo set up to give the matter full consideration. Mr W. Gow (Duncdin) said the eon- j stitution of the Court should be con- | sidered. Was the arrangement support- j ed by the Government better than that j at present? One effect of the former was that they would have a variety of awards. There would be undesirable differences between awards throughout New Zealand. The present arrangement was unsatisfactory. Mr T. 11. Eicc (Wangauui; said his organisation was unanimously in favour of the exemption of the farming industry. The Third Party. Mr W. J. Butler (Wcstlnnd) supported the idea of a committee considering the question, but it should bear some of the discussion. The idea chiefly should be suggestions regarding the constitution of the Court. It had not in the past sufficiently considered tho consumers' interests, and the committee should take note of that factor. No commercial enterprise was justified if it did not serve tho community. Provision should be made for greater consideration of the consumer. All members should receive a living wage, but the industry should not pay more than it received. He did not sec why the single man should be compensated in the same fashion as the married man with two children, or that the industry should be taxed in this manner. Mr C. 11. Weston (New Plymouth) suggested that they should affirm the need for the existence of the Court. Mr A. J. Seed (Wellington) said the workers' organisations were ready for a severe fight over the Bill, to which tho Government was not wedded. Some of tho provisions represented a desire to compromise on several viewpoints pressed strongly upon the Government. Parliament was going to debate the matter at considerable length, and the Government would be looking for a way out. He suggested that they should consider proposal's for the improvement of the Bill. Mr Seed outlined the provisions of the Bill. Employers generally considered the procedure outlined quite impracticable and impossible. The work of the Court would be subjected to delays, and the proposed arbitrators would give no consideration to other industries. A reasonable Compromise would be forced on the Judge and the genera! effects ou the community would be overlooked. If tho constitution as proposed was adopted, it would be a very serious mistake. Mr A. P. Wright (Canterbury) said the Act had been beneficial at first, but | its defections dated back to the instituI tion of preference to unionists. Ee- | strict ion of output was indissolubly bound up with this principle. No amendment of the Court's constitution would be of lasting benefit if preference to unionists was not made illegal. By , compulsory preference an incalculable j power was placed in the hands of a j small body of men. If they had a j large and 'influential body of unionists i an energetic secretary was always look- I ing for an opportunity to improve their ; '■>r. TJhese efforts often overstepped the bounds of commonsense. i Compulsory Unionism. j The Association should bear in mind j the resentment of a great number of unionists against compulsory unionism and preference. He did not think the go-slow policy obtained to anything like the same extant in other countries as

in Australia and New Zealand. The effect on the national character should be considered. Industry could not receive the needed stimulus unless tho goslow policy w-as abolished. A clause should be introduced into the Act doing away with the compulsory preference. (Applause.) Mr T. W. Viekery (Invercargill) said his organisation was in favour of the abolition of the Court. What they wanted was to allow the worker to earn the highest amount as the reward of his industry. Perhaps some employers should be criticised. It was surprising to what extent piecework could bo introduced, by setting a standard of work. Freedom of contract eould not operate in New Zealand. Ho advocated better methods in industry. A man should be paid a basic wage to enable him to live, and after that it should be piece-work. Some of the industries could pay more if they were improved. One provision of the Bill, the payment of piecework, should be supported. The moaning of the farmers had been the result of depression and speculation, but he thought their lot would not be so hard if they introduced up-to-date methods. The president said he took it from the discussion that they were in favour of the committee to be appointed considering the constitution of the Court, its functions and the results of its pronouncements; fewer restrictions on conditions and hours, and the irksome regulations affecting industry; the payment of a minimum wage, and thereafter by results or the institution of piecework; and the abolition of preference to unionists. •'Are you in favour of this?" asked Mr Machin. The conference unanimously signified its approval. The president then moved that the committee be Messrs Lunn. Richards.. Agar, Butler, and Machin. This wn= approved. Mr Machin said the committee would bring down a remit on Monday. Mr Lunn suggested that a telegram be sent to the Prime Minister advising him that the matter was being considered. Mr Seed said the Bill would be before the Labour Bills Committee on Monday. - -^