The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1917. AN APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 26, 25 October 1917, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1917. AN APPEAL TO COMMON SENSE

Observations on the industrial ?u £ macl ° by fchc of the i\ew Zealand Employers' Federation (Mr. T. Shailek Weston) at the annual meeting of that organisation were marked by sound sense and deserve the though*tful v consideration not merely of trades \inionists but of the whole community. In a yery definite sense we aro at a parting of ways in this country, where industrial progress is concerned. Generally in our regulation of industry, and particularly in regard to relations between employers and employed, there is an unwise and humiliating neglect of constructive thought and effort. Thore is any amount of rational co-operation between workers and employers in detail industrial establishments, but organised Labour and organised omploying interests are so generally at cross-purposes that this state of affairs has almost come to be regarded as permanent and inevitable. To admit such a conclusion would perhaps be pessimistic, but the existing situation has discouraging features. It is plain enough that to continue on these lines would be to throw away some of the greatest benefits which modern industrial organisation and development bring I within reach. The failure of Capital and Labour to approach an effec-

tive partnership, to look for the moment no deeper into tho matter, reflects on the intelligence of both sections engaged in industry. When two individuals of ordinai'y intelligence onter into a business partnership they either unite harmoniously to advance their common interests

or agree to separate. Organised workers and employers have adopted and pursued a different policy to their loss. They have as much to gain'by mutual agreement and harmonious co-operation as any other partners, and as much to, lose by perpetuating hostile relations and discord. A still larger and more important question is opened, however-, when we consider that it is the general public, much more than the workers or employers immediately concerned in futile industrial disputes, who pay the penalty. It was upon this point that Mr. Weston's observations centred. It is certainly high time, as he remarked, that the goneral public should realise that they are the people most directly interested in wages disputes. "They must grip what is really a commonplace, that the- cost of all strikes and increased wages is in the end paid by them." There is much point also in Mn. Weston , s further observation that an employer in. refusing an increase of wages which will be paid by the consumer, and not out of his profits, is really protecting the public, and that if employers find that in shaping their policy with an eye to the interests of the public they merely incur eensuro and reproach their easiest course will be to give way to demands and earn a cheap reputation for generosity at the expense of ablind public. This, of course, does not mean that all demands for increased wages should be resisted as an attempt to exploit the public. What it means is that the fate of such a demand should not, depend only on the powers of coercion possessed by a union and the resisting powers of the employers to whom it is addressed, but should be determined with an eye to its justice and to the interests of the genoral community. At present toll in the shape of increased prices is levied'on the ! "great third party" not only to meet whatever increases in wages arc obtained, justly or unjustly, by Lakmr organisations, but to cover the waste and outlay involved in strikes and other disturbances of industry. No individual would tolerate such treatment in his individual capacity whilo any possible remedy existed, but the public have hitherto accepted it passively. That trades unionists constitute a considerable section of tho community, and with their families sharo as a body in all tho penalties and burdens that irrational industrial methods involve, only emphasises tho fatuity and injustice of the whole proceeding. , There is no simple remedy for the existing state of affairs. Tho problem to be attacked is wide in scope and complex; and its complexity is accentuated by the fact that industrial organisations have a perfect and undisputed right to press for legitimate concessions and the satisfaction of legitimate grievances. "But there is certainly ample scope for improvement. A state of affairs in which barren industrial warfare, carried on at the expense of the general community, is nearly always moro or less in evidence, only needs to ho realised in its true character to be condemned by all intelligent men and women. Given such a realisation it would not be long before more rational conditions wero introduced. A considerable proportion of tho trades unionists of,the Dominion are no doubt as anxious as any other section of the community to see stable industrial conditions established, but it cannot be ignored that the Labour movement includes in its ranks an extreme section whose members are deliberately devoted to promoting strife for its own sake, and, consciously or unconsciously, are hostile to every real reform. If, as Mb. Weston states, tho extremists still cherish the idea of promoting a general strike in this country, it is to be hoped that the good sense of the mass of unionists dooms the attempt to failure. Late events in Australia have demonstrated very clearly that the general strike is simply and solely a violent attack upon the general community, with the added and farcical injustice that in the end the whole community has to pay for being attacked. We cannot believe that the unionists of this country as a body or any other section of tho community, are blind to this staggering object-lesson. But the extremists in their way arc a force of which account must be taken. A choice example of the noxious rubbish they dissominatc, which was cited by Mr. Weston is worth repeating as a. striking illustration of their attitude

No workinK c!n«s organisation with a semblance of backbone or the slightest liiiowlcdßO of their position would milvscribn to «u organisation one of whoso objects was to promote a good understanding between tho employers mid employees. The origin of this grotesquely absurd declaration of policy is not stated, but it is typical of much that has fallen from the men who are fond of babbling about "class war," and am too blinded by Uioir preiudice to appreciate the folly of tho

doctrines they preach. Advocacy ol strife for its own sake and a refusal to consider the settlement on any terms of questions in dispute between employers and employees are commonplace features in the propaganda of these extremists. There can he no thought either of reasonable argument or of compromise with the exponents of such views. They aim manifestly not at the reformation but at tho destruction of our existing social order. That extremists of this type have gained influence over even a minority of the workers of this country must be sot down as one of the results of our general neglect to concentrate upon rational methods of 'industrial development and regulation. Their influence will become really dangerous only if employers and workers persist in neglecting the opportunities which are visibly before them of co-operating to their own benefit and that of tho community. The speech of the president of the Employers' Federation is a welcome indication that employers are ready to embark on a new industrial policy with co-operation as its central feature. A similar spirit >of reasonable accommodation on tho part of organised Labour would bring into prospect great and far-reaching benefits which are certainly to be attained in no other way.