THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2021, 5 March 1907, Page 1

THE ARBITRATION COURT.

In your issuo of Monday, writes ‘Lox’ in tho Wellington Post, I endeavoured to establish tho following propositions 1. Tho Arbitration Act as it stands contains no guide whatever to a wage standard and no basis for determining tho, rate to bo paid.

2. Tho court has not boon able to fix any standard or basis, but proceeds either haphazard or at best by rule of thumb. 3. If the Act is to continue in forco it is essential to its proper working that such a standard should bo determined either by statuto or by tho court.

4. The only -workable and rational “minimum”, standard is tlie needs of the workman” based upon what is requisite; lor health and decency. 5. Such a standard requires the recognition of the oxtont to which the neods Of married workmen, who have to support a wife and young children, exceed those of unmarried workmen with no dependents. 6. Hence the award rate—the mifiiirum—for such married workmen should be higher than that of such unmarried workmen. 7. This is not at present permitted by the Arbitration Act, which should bo amended accordingly: It' will be observed that ■in these piopositions I was not attacking an existing standard, for tlio simple reason that there is none. It was not discussing what a workman should take, but only the least the law should allow an employer to pay’. I showed that by an inevitable progiession the Court has ceased to fulfil tho function it was originally created to discharge, of settling at a critical stage genuine industrial disputes between masters and men, and has become essentially an official “minimum” wage regulator. I asked what rational test of this “minimum” could be offered the Court, and I found no other than the “needs of the workman.” I defined these as such genuine needs as must be satisfied to raise and maintain by health and decency’ the best efficiency of tlie workman in his trade and calling, and I claimed that you cannot secure the efficiency unless you include in these needs those of his wife and young children.

To develop and support these view’s I occupied two columns of .your valuable space, and I must not trespass further by mere repetition. Yo u- issue of Thursday contains various views of various critics. May X summarise them? They, one or other, tell me:—

1. Your proposals are not advisable or practicable. 2. Tho minimum wage should be fixed by Act of Parliament, and should not be less than Is per hour. (Query—ls this for both men and women, married and single—young and old —the lightest occupation and tlio heaviest? How many hours must each bo employed? Finally, what then becomes of the Arbitration Court and its rate, if the minimum is fixed by statute?) 3. The workrijan wants a good living, not an existence. 4. The basis of wages is on the order paper for the Easter Labor Conference. 5. The bachelor of to-day will be tho married mati of to-morrow, and, inforontially,’- nach(#Fqnr bachelors is saving up to get married.' 6. The basis of wages should be profit-sharing. (Inferentially, if the “basis” is to be profit-sharing, the, “basis” disappears when there are no profits—and when there are “losses,” what is to happen?) 7. Your arguments are poor theorising. We have not road your article, but wo dislike academic discussion about . a theory which might become possible 200 years hence. 8. Your idea is that an employer should carry on his business without ascertaining the running cost. 10. Your theory will paralyse most industries. 11. Your is a false one, because it will make an employer responsible for the private or domestic condition of the worker. 12 If the burden of the working married man is to be considered, let the State give him a bonus. 13. A married laborer’s wife fipd family do not benefit his employer. 14, .A single man’s work is just as profitable to an employer as a

married man’s. These are all the answers to my contentions. Do these answers (a) suggest any standard for the Arbitration Court; (b) disprove my proposition that the “needs” standard is the. only rational (‘minimum!’ test the Court can ax»ply.

My critics have first entirely evaded the point and for the rest have adopted that maxim of * prudence •‘never give reasons for they are‘apt to betray the fallacy of your conclu-. sions.” It is gratifying to me, howover, that both employers and workmen denounce my views. When both contesting parties are dissatisfied with a decision it is most probably right. May I, however, beg my critics to answer these simple questions:

—.Do yon contend that an employer should be allowed by law to pay for a full week’s work less than will satisfy the genuine needs as I have defined them of the workman? If you do, then I have nothing more to say. If you do agreo that tho satisfaction of these needs must be “minimum,” tlipji do you contend that nothing must bo'included in those “needs” for the maintenance of the workman’s wife and young children? Again, if yon so contend I have nothing more to say. It is useless to proceed with a controversy until we get some understanding about the ultimata involved.

Meantime let' me point out that 1 nowhere suggested that a bachelor should work for a baro “needs” wage. Ho must be loft tp exact wliat lie can get. The State, and I have been dealing only with the State aspect of the case, discharges its duty when it forbids any employer to pay less to a workman than will supply his genuine wants. Beyond that the workman must do the best be can for himself. Obviously, however, single men under my proposal would get more than the bare “needs” wage. The proportion of married to single workers to be employed in an industry would be fixed by the Court. The value to the employers of the work done by each would be the same. For these reasons the single men who must be employed would demand as much for tlie difference between their “needs” wage and that of the married “needs” wage as the condition of the labor market and a single man’s greater independence would enable him to enforce.

But this proposal has a wider aspect. Much is heard and a little seen nowadays of the need of a human element in our wage system. Many employers, like Mr. Shirtcjifie, increase the wages of a servant who gets married, and in numerous directions the needs of a workman burdened with family responsibilities aro to some extent recognised by the master. The essence of humanity is self-sacrifice, and there is nearly as much room for this virtue among the

ranks of the workers as. among their employers.. In many S-vfactory in Wellington the single mail gots exactly tho same uage as his married fellow worker. Tho- one has enough and to spare for things ho would bo hotter without, tho other finds life a continual pinch and struggle. \

Lot labor got as much as it can by any system l'j'om its employer, this disparity and contrast will still oxist. For lot us remember that wages can not bo made out of moonshine or clap-trap,'-and arc limited by tho cold limits of production. This being so, do not single workers fool that if tho burden of their married comrades cannot be wholly thrown upon employers the claims ol brotherhood and justice require them to take something dt-ss if thereby their burdened will get something more. ..)£* But unless I am what I said in my former'lctfjju- Cjfnuist now unit until my critics'srTaveWpul time to think of a little argument;