THE LABOUR TROUBLES OF TO-DAY

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 86, 6 January 1919, Page 6

THE LABOUR TROUBLES OF TO-DAY

"A. GRAVE WARNING." Sir.—ln The Dominion' of December 19 I read with interest the views of tyr. T. Shailer We'stori'(presidehtof the Employers' Federation) on the labour question. He says: "There must be more trust between employers and employed. ' This can only arise from a radical change in tfie mental attitude of individual, employer and employed, towards ' each other." Then, ho says, "The experience of the last four years must have taught everyone that a decrease in the cost of living is what benefits the greater number, and that a rise in the price of wages operates unequally,' and benefits ,the few at the_expense of many. This want of certainty in 'industrial conditions is one 'of the factors that result in higher. prices." In these few sentences Mr. Shailer Weston opens up the crux of the whole ,of the labour troubles of to-day.

What every decent employer of labour 16 longing for and working for is better relations and more mutual trust'between employer and employee. This, however, seems to me impossible under present conditions. How can < anyone ■ trust to the pledged word'of Labour when mnny of the leaders and men openly state that they look, on an agreement as the proverbial 6crap of paper, to be only adhered to as long as it suits.

The Conciliation and Arbitration Courts were first initiated in hopes ijf obtaining better relations between- the employer nnd employee, nnd mako strikes unnecessary. ' Have they done so? I venture to say it has had the opposite effect, and both the Courts have resulted in bitter and egregious failing.

_ Labour, cites the employer to the.Conciliatiqn Court, and obtains what concessions it can,-then takes him on to the Arbitration' Court, and risks for more concessions, and pleads higher cost of liv-' ing, obtains more concessions on this plen; signs : an agreement, say, for three years, and in a few months breaks its solemn pledges, flouts and insults the Courts, and insists upon more rises, and so the game goes on. Who has to pay the piper? The general public. In these days of large taxation to meet the enormous indebtedness of the country, nil economists wjll agree that it" is essential that the production of the wealth of tho country should be increased to tho uttermost'. But how is it possible, to do so under present labour conditions? The producers, manufacturers, and all those who assist in the "production of wealth, are tied down and hampered by the appalling uncertainty &f 1 tho labour conditions. Tho cry pfit forth ngain and 'again of the hieh' cost of living is, mere claptrap. The increased cost is mainly caused by the constant increase in wages nnd disruption of labour conditions. How are the industries of the country to be kept' going with the uncertainties which exist? Tho manufacturer, every time he has to pay higher Wnges, has to charge more for his goods, and the public has to pay. J hen, knowing that- tho prico of labour is so uncertain, in placing forward contracts, he must allow a considerable margin for eventualities, increasing again the, price of goods. Again the long-suf-fering public lias to pay. The retailer has to pay higher wages to his employees as well as higher prices to the manufacturer, nnd the public is mulcted. •Snipping companies aro again and again obliged to ri6e their charges owing to tlie outrageous demands of labour (note the present demands),' and the general public lias to stand the loss iind inconvenience caused thereby. In fajt. the whole economic conditions of the country, are in a 6tate of chaos, owing to tho action of Labrfur as led by t-FTe noso bv the professional agitator, who keep's things in a constant state of turmoil for his own selfish ends. The uncertainties of tho relations between Labour and i* l must have the most appalling effect on the economic welfare of tlie country, and if something is not done the result will be disastrous. .Tho greatest detriment to the production of wealth is not merely (lie exorbitant demands of labour, but the uncertainty of the whole position caused by tho utter disregard of all integrity and honour by certain sections of Labour in not keeping their solemn pledges and agreements, Mr. Similar Weston says in his speech before quoted that "if there is to bo a rapprochement between Labour and Capital tho leaders on each sido must have a mutual trust and respect for each other, and agreements tnado between them must be scrupulously respected by thoir followers." Now, how is this very desirable state of things to

'be obtained? I see no hope of any tgfe from tho Labour leaders, many of who® are utterly devoid of any sense of tliei* honourable obligations in such mattery ami the rank and file seem to be content to be ordered and led by the uoso by tho professional agitato. That being tho case, the only hope for the country I can see is to enforce the carrying out of the agreements by law. This would entail the thorough revision or recasting of the Conciliation and Arbtratiou Act, and X suggest in making awards a maximum rate of wages, and not'a',minimum one, should be fixed. The Arbitration Act was presumably passed as.a measure to prevent strikes.. By making a minimum. 1 award it incites the labourer to ask for more, break his agreement, and laugh at the Court. Then is not a miniluuni award an injustice to'the working man? It is presumed that when an award is given it represents a just wage for the efficient worker. But what about a man who is not efficient? Say a lhau returns from the war who is only capable of doing half an ordinary man's work at his trade. An employer cannot afford to give him full wages, but would be willing to give him half wages, which ho could earn, but he is debarred from doing so, and the unfortunate man has to live on his pension, and become a loafer. This seems to me callous and brutal selfishness on the part of the fit worker If an efficient earns ten shillings a day at his trade or employment, why should not a man who can only do half work bo allowed to earn half wages? I contend, therefore, that in all awards a maximum wago should.be fixed, and anyone taking or giving more than the award should be heavily punished. • .In the present state of the. Act the employer cannot give less than the award under j'a penalty, and tho employee cannot tnka less under the union (rules, but the employer can give more than the award, and often does, thereby breaking, faith with his fellow employers, and even in many cases enticing men away from another's service by offering higher wages, and there is no redress. The employee can breakhis agreement at any time'he chooses with impunity, the result being utter disregard of , honour on either, side. This being so, is it to be wondered at that all respect and good feeling between employer and employee (except in individual ' cases)' has almost entirely disappeared? The employer lives with the sword of Damocles over Ijis head, and his life is well nigh unbearable, and the uncertainty of tho labour conditions' is fast bringing tho industries of the country to ruin. The country is ruled by professional politMnns, who, -under the curse of Party Goyernment, lose sight entirely of' the general welfare of tho country in their anxiety over their party squabbles and their own personal politi- ■ cal interests, and wit|i the disruption of nil industries which is taking place there is a (f?rible time coming for New Zealand. The writing is on the wall; let, therefore, the country seriously ponder the matter, and take steps to avert the evil which is assuredly creeping upon us. The danger is the greatest that the country has ever faced, therefore" let. all take heed—l am, etc., •

H. D. VAVASOUR. Ugbrooke, Blenheim, January 4.