THE SLAUGHTERMEN'S DEMANDS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1651, 18 January 1913, Page 4

THE SLAUGHTERMEN'S DEMANDS.

With the publication to-day of Sir George Clifford's statement on behalf of tho meat-freezing companies in their dispute with the slaughtermen the public is placed in: possession of both Bides in the case. The men appear to have taken care,to avoid infringing. that unfortunate Act which it cornea almost aB a.shock to remembor was 'for many years extolled asHhe. creator'arid preserVer of peace, continuity, and justice 'in our And the companies have of course never been able to infringe it, even if thoy had wished to. The dispute is therefore one in which the public is interested only.in two ways: first,' as potential sufferers from the aggression of the slaughtermen (since the publio always suffers from any stoppage pf v an industry), and second, as the unarmed judges as to the merits of a dispute between two parties as to what is a reasonable wage for a certain # class ' of work, it ' is obviously impossible for anyone, worker or employer or looker-on, to say what is the exactly proper wage'for a nobody possesses, and nobody can possess, all tho data necessary to settle ;<the question. , But there are facts which make it not difficult to measure the merits of the slaughtermen's demand of 30s. per 100 accompanied by drastic requirements as to those who may bo employed by the oompanies in the work of killing. Since 1906 the prioe has risen from 20s. to 25b. and tho' men have been led bv their advisors to demand 30s. —whioh would moan' an increaso of 60 per cent in seven years in the wages of a well-paid trade, in which it is admitted that men can' earn from £6 to £8 a week. Such a demand is prima facie unreasonable, and the onuB" of justifying it lies upon the slaughtermen, and of justifying it, not by rhetoric, but by a presentation of facts which shall prove beyond all question,-that the existing wage of 255. has been monstrously inadequate. _ Tho com.panies insist that 255. is an adequate wage—in actual practico it' results in the slaughtermen drawing a wage far higher than that in many other trades—but thoy are willing to pay 275. 6d. in ordor to prevent a dislocation of the industry which would press most hardly on their other employees. Sir George Clifford, points out that tho demands of the men as to tho employment of learners are as injurious to employees or intending employees as to the' companies. These demands (that the proportion .of learners shall be roduced by half, and that only certain 'classes of youths shall be enabled to' become learners) are rooted in the desire of labour unions to make themselves close corporations. No, immediate benefit, that wo can see', can. accrue fcb the slaughtermen themsolves from the granting of thiß demand excepting the greater caso with whioh a fairly close labour corporation can insist upon obviously unfair terms for its privileged members. If this were a- freo country, in which trados unions wevo not in possession of powers and privileges which no political party would dare to conferon any other section of the community, no vital public,interest would be involved in any dispute as,to wages and conditions of work. But in the present case it is clear enough that the. slaughtermen aro rnoroly lending themselves to the campaign

of the official Labour party for tho enslavement of everyone outside the ranks of the trade unions. The only effect of the dispute, whatever may be its issue, will bo to set people thinking afresh upon the chaos and loss that is at tho end of the road along which the, labour bosses, ontrenched in tho statutory privileges which subject tho community to a .small section of it, arc marching their men.