THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 19662, 15 September 1927, Page 13

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

IO THK EDITOR. Sir,---’With your permission might I defer my reply to Mr Harrison, whom I am sure will excuse me, whilst I deal once for all with your correspondents “J.G.” and “A. 8.” ? Correspondents of the “J.G.” typo are to my mind a greater curse to sane discussion than any other class that 1 know of. When a correspondent descends to abuse, misquotation, and blatant ignorance of what he is writing about, then 1 lor one have neither the time nor the inclination to waste words with him. 1 would just like to assure “J.G.” that 1 have earned my living by the sweat of my brow' for the last thirty years. .1 have worked for a boss, have employed unionists, and have never paid them arbitration wages, hut always more. 1 have sacked men for being parasites on their fellow-workers, ami do not care how much a man gets as long as ho earns it. I have learned the lesson that the only money which did mo most good was the money .1 worked hard lor. 1 have also learned the lesson that it docs not pay mo to cater lor tho worker that clogs my wheels of progress, and in many cases, sooner than employ tho inefficient, it paid me to Like less work and do it myself. This is the lesson I am trying to pass on to my fclknv-workcr and to the efficient business man—tho survival of tho fittest, tho first law of Nature. “ J.G.’s” reference to tho “tick on tho sheep’s hack” is very appropriate. Let tho thinking W'orking man get_the tick of his lead-swinging, parasitical, inefficient worker off his hack, and give tho efficient employer an opportunity of paying him more for his efficiency, instead of having to pay him on a flat basis because of the inefficiency of others. That is my reasoning. But when a correspondent writes that a man has a natural right to laziness at times as being “good for the health,'’ without any qualification as to at whose expense, and then complains of _ the rich man’s laziness—well, to mo it is piffle. His remarks on waste of energy of travellers, etc., arc only another sample of his mentality. Now for “ A. 8.” : Ho fakes the same line as to salesmen, etc., not being workers. No doubt among this class many arc supporters of flic Labor Party, and would ho highly insulted at being told they are not workers. Inter alia, do the union secretary, organiser, etc, produce? Probably discord, bat I mean something of value. “A.li.’s” remarks on tho Arbitration Court and its functions are not in dispute. It is its futility as a means of settling Labor and Capital troubles •which is under discussion. Prooahly I know Dunedin as well as your correspondent, as f was horn hen: and worked here all my Hie. As popu ali.ni increases, successful business must increase. This is not all one to He worker, because tho numli.m of hands employed must necessarily mean lugger business. As for his slaleineiit, ol employees not getting more wages alter a life’s service, t am not mi authority, for. unlike “A. 8.,” I moot admit I do not know it all. I replied to toc-o correspondents, as I said, once lor all, for neither has added any solution fo the troubles under discussi in. Unlike Mr Harrison, who apparently is prepared to discuss, not argue, the pios and cons of this great tro.ible _ for tho sake of finding ’a sound solution and sane basis to work on, ibis class ot torrespondent does more harm than good, so in future they shall be completely ignored. Vfliat wo want is a clear, concise, destructive, and constructive criticism of the Labor t roubles, not a mud-slinging abusive contest of absurdities. —i am, etc., T.M. September Ll-.