BOON OR BANE ?

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 482, 15 April 1909, Page 4

BOON OR BANE ?

« ARBITRATION ACT DISSECTED. BY BUSINESS MEN. "THE CONSUMER PAYS FOR IT;" At the conference of Chambers of Com' merco yesterday,, Mr. H. Broadhead, secretary of the Canterbury Employers' Association, read a carefully-prepared paper on tho working of tho Arbitration Act. Ho sketched tho more recent history of the labour question in Mew Zealand, and gave an account of tlio working of tlio Arbitration Act. Amongst tho subjects dealt with were: breaches of awards, tho incompetent worker, and apprentices. Continuing, Mr. Broadhead sairl: "If the industries of this country are to progress as they ought, tlioy must not be hampered by labour legislation. 1 am of opinion, after careful survey of labour matters hero for nine years, that the Arbitration Act has hindered, and is still hindering, tho industrial progress of the country." While our industries had progressed, they would, in his opinion, have increased by leaps and bounds if tlio employers had' had a free hand, instead of being fettered on every hand. Nothing coull bo said against any reasonable step that might bo taken to keep down real sweating, but tho sweating that had occurred in this country could have been easily checked by the insertion of a clause or two in tho Factories Act. If Wages are Reduced. An interesting problem faced the Arbitration Court if the employers applied for a roduction of wages--if tho condition of trade warranted it. Dealing with preferenoa to unionists, Mr. Broadhead said that his experience was that unionism was .never satisfied, and eve. :onc«ssion given to it only paved the for a'further demand. Mr. Justice Sim's au'. „eacy of absolute compulsory unionism had served ono good purpose. ,lt had shown employers the danger which threatened their iiborty, and that of thousands of workers. Opposed to Preferonoo. Mr. Broadhead said he had always opposed preference in any form, not merely because it was ar infringement of the liberty of tho subj.ct, and was contrary to common law, but because its advocates had never been ablo to advance sound reasons why it should be granted. Many workers did not believe in unionism, and would hava nothing to do wit'- it. Why should tha liberty of .'bese mi t be interfered with? Had they no right to have a mind of their own? A Most Harmful Effect. Mr. Broadhead submitted figures from \vhich he said that it would bo seen iliat tho excess per cent, of importations over local manufactures in 1005, as compared with IBUS. was as follows: Boots and shoos, 95 per cent.; woollens, 57 per cent.; machinery and implements, 95 per cent. Yet the period from 1895 to 1905 witnessed, perhaps, the .'mo of tho Dominion's greatest prosperity. "Thero is a widespread opinion," said Mr, Broadhead, "that the workers of this country aro being coddled by tho State, and that this coddling is having a most harmful effect." In conclusion, the speaker said: "It is my humble opinion that tho Arbitra. lion Act has not accomplished what its author expected of it; that it has checked industrial enter'.riso ; and that ; t would bo better for the countiy if a simp! Act for the prevention of striker, in important :n----dustries, and tho settlement of all disputes by voluntary conciliation and 'rbitration, were established," 1 The president proposed and it was-. ,recd that a vote of thanks bo accorded to Mr. Broadhead for his interesting paper, Apathy of Business Men. Mr. D. J. Nathan (Wellington), after com. j plimcnting Mr. Broadhead upon his paper, ! said that it was the general public that paid. In Wellington the commercial class was ver 1 apathetic in regard to questions <-.' fch 1 description, or oven in regard to ' 'oal .r commercial questions. If tlio class that v.as so materially affected by the matters referred to by Mr. Broadhead would not joiu hands and endeavour to get tho legislation amended so as to suit thoir own particular class and 'tho Dominion generally, it must be agreed that labour in tho street and trades unions wero only doing what was right in combining to further their own interests. And, in his opinion, that must go on. Thoro.was nothing wrong, in his view, in tho formation of a workers' union. In Favour of Unions. In fact, if he were a worker himself ho would bo ono of the first to propose tho formation of a union. The men were quite right to form unions, and get all tho benefits they could from them. Those present might' just as well bo honest. They were there for tho benefit of the commercial community! and for the country. Labour in tho street had just as ntucli right to combine as they had. 'With reference to preference to unionists, he might point out that in trado they haa to meet combinations of capital. There wero in that city and country corporations trading which laid down rules and regulations under which they would trado with you; and if you did not comply with those rules you did not got supplied. If the.v looked through tho Statute-books of Great Britain and her oversea dominions they wouldfind that during tho last few years the right of labour to combine had been recognised. For every hundred Acts 011 tho Statute-book of Great Britain, 95 per cent. were for tho protection of wealth and property; and it was only during the last fow years that liumani-taria-nism had spread over tho civilised world, and that the rights of man and. of labour had been properly recognjsed, , Anyone travelling through Great Britain .would rocogniso that tho conditions of labour wero very different there from what they wero hern. They did not want to sco the Old World conditions repeated in this country. Tho question was: Were wo running to tlio other extreme? In many eases tlio workers at Homo did not work under tho same sanitary conditions as tho workers It was possible that thoso who wero making our laws were going to the other extreme. It was the same with our land legislation. We wero going from ono extreme to thd other. Who Pays? , Who was paying for all this? They (tin merchants and manufacturers) ,wcro paying for it first, and for . the ' inconvem. once of it. That was quite true. But who paid for that? It was tlio general public. If tlio whole of ihe;public aro willing to pay the extra price under the present system, what could thoso present say? It would not bo until tho ordinary middle-class workers paid, and the.v wanted to reduce tho cost of living, that this question would bo faced. As he had said, as long as the consumer was prepared to pay tho extra prico 110 did not sec why tho traders: or manufacturers should grumble. ( An Important Point, But this point seemed to have been overlooked : Ihe fact that our manufactured goods were in daily competition with imported goods from oilier countries. It was the cost of the imported coods that regulated the cost of our locally-manufactured goods. If our manufacturers wero hampered by restrictions, and were forced to pay rapes unduly high, tliev would be compelled to carry 011 business at a loss or have to flo out of business altogether. Tho whole trouble was this, to his mind: that we wero .not a self-con-tained country. f , Mr. M. J. Marriner (Christehurch) said that Mr. Broadhead was an authority on tha subject of labour legislation, and he alluded to the great advantages secured by largo foreign manufacturers bv reason of their specialisation in manufacturing particular classes of articles. Heshawe:! tho different conditions under which manufacturers hero and abroad conducted thoir business. Mr. A. Chiistonsen (Patcl) maintained that the Arbitration Court had fulfilled tlio purpose for which it was instituted. 11. had assisted materially in i_ preventing strikes. Labour had a perfect right h organise, and to try and get as much as lley could. Even now 'it took workingmen all their time to earn a living. The conforonco then passed 011 to othor business.