MR. TRECEAR AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 258, 24 July 1908, Page 3

MR. TRECEAR AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Sir,—Tho Secretary for Labour, in his annual report, has mado a laboured pronouncement in defence of tho Act. If his knowledge of thoso " underlying principles," and the result-s of its general working, had equalled his assurance, then his statement might have had a real value. He has been good enough to inform'what' ho presumes is an ' ignorant public of many of those special benefits secured by the operation of this precious enactment. To each I will, with your permission, refer later on. First of all. he states, _ "In my judgment the principles underlying tho Arbitration Act are impregnable, ana havo been practically unassailed. I beg to deny this statement. Now, had he stated that tho true principle of arbitration was impregnablo, I would not only ' havo agreed with him, but supported the contention. That truo principle is not contained in tho Act, it never formed ,any part of it. Why, the title and designation is a misnomer: its application a:nd operation a downright farce and a failure.' Going back to 1894, when ;it„was 'first introduced, its preamblo rea4s: ' Ail Act to 'encourage.; industrial Unions, etc." In the name of common-sense, what has this to do with arbitration? It-is 'now understood as '"'Compulsory Arbitration." Wonderful! One might-just as well.speak of compulsory spontaneity, coercivo freedom, paid gratuitous labour, or any other contradictory .term.. It is simply because it is compulsory that it cannot possibly be arbitration. If compulsion is really_ arbitration, then we need to alter the meaning of tho words. Let mo hero define what, "in my judgment," arbitration really is. Say you and I have, a misunderstanding relating to the payment of an account. Each thinks he is right; neither will yield the point. Wo agree to refer the matter to an unbiased and competent third party and hold'ourselves bound to honourably abide by his decision. That, I submit, is arbitration puro and simple. Now, wo will take the well-known application of this wretched legal abortion, to wit, tho Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Any seven men can cite seven thousand of employers, with whom, they havo no dispute, whom they havo. never seen, and during their natural lives may never see, for whom thoy hive never worked, never known even by repute good or ill. They can obtain an award by men who know nothing about tho nature of the employment or the .circumstances however. varied. They can bind thoso employers for three years. But that is not arbitration. A man who can't see this is either wilfully blind.or hopelessly ignoraut. .Well, that is ono of the "underlying principles" of this enactment that is, according to Secretary Tregear, impregnable. Rovealed in all its natural' hideousness, what is it? Its real title ought to have been, "An Act empowering tho least possible number of workers to harass, coerce, and tyranniso over tho greatest possible number of employers, to cause such employers strictly to observe all awards, to allow such workers to disregard their own obligations whenever' they maydeem it'expedient." • This , would be in perfect keeping with "its underlying principles" and operation. Then reference is made to certain benefits said to bo conferred: "Raised wages, shortened'hours, given payment for overtime, for' holidays, and/ for travelling." Let us investigate these several items. • Wages have undoubtedly increased. Is tho worker any better off? No, not by any means. The increased cost of manufacturing production and distribution has mopped all the increase, 'As soon as the increase was mado all round each consumer indirectly paid to others tho full value of his own-increased wage. It could not be otherwise.Besides, if the costs increased 10 por cent., nothing could stop an increased charge of 15 per cent, beiug made to meet it. In such case it was not tho worker who benefited, and, straugely enough, he has not been able to see it. Apparently it has only just dawned upon Secretary Tregear. It is not what wages a worker receives, but what lie can save out of his earnings that improves his position. Payment for holidays is of doubtful honesty, especially when it is compulsory. Why should any one receive payment for work never performed?' If Mr. Tregear were billed for an extra bag of sugar or pair of boots .he never received [ think it is quite likely ho would look upon tho tradesman as being dishonest. In principle, where is the difference? Overtime, and - travelling are quite different. ■ 1 Preference to Unionists " is distinctly a monopoly, and wholly indefensible. Don't talk about "God's Own Country;" whero the liberty and freedom is all on one side, compulsion and tyranny all on tho other.Then we aro told " it has steadied trades till' it brought prosperity to the employer." I wonder how many employers, or, perhaps, I should say how few employers in New Zealand would believe this? Frankly, I may say I don't believo a word of it. After enumerating so many things to its credit, he forthwith discounts much that is directly attributable to its operation. Further, we are told, " It was simply an Act to promote industrial peace." Has it dono this r 1 Certainly not. Never was an Act in existence that so completoly failod of its object. Sir George Livc'say has stated " that the legislation that produces exactly tho opposite of what was intended is a proof of the existence of parliamentary ignoramuses." If that is so, tho parliamentary ignoramus has been very much in evidence in New Zealand for tho last fourteen years.—l am, etc., AGRICOLA. July- 16j