THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2239, 10 July 1908, Page 2

THE ARBITRATION ACT.

DEFENCE OF THE NEW BILL. [Press Association.] WELLINGTON, July 9. _ Speaking in reference to the Arbitration Amendment Bill, the Minister for Labor (Hon. J. A. Millar) said:— Whilst apparently the provisions of the new Act against- striking aro verv drastie, they aro not as drastic as the ■existing law, because tilio original penalty fixed under the Act. for a breach of an. award or.a strike by a union or employers association is £SOO, whereas under the Bill of this session it. is reduced to £IOO in the case of unions ami £2OO for employers associations. All imprisonment is done away with, and nothing but tho. civil process of slicing for a debt.. before tho ordinary Magistrate’s Court is left, as the strike as now treated as a breach of an award. If it is said the penalty is too drastic for the workers, then you are left with a'bigger penalty on tho employer. If. the penalty on the worker for a breach of an award is to bo reduced, then tho penalty must be reduced for the employer, and ,if that is carried out to its logical conclusion, and the penalty brought down to tho minimum, breaches will go oil till it will pay men to commit breaches. To make the law effective and observed, the only thing that makes the present proposal appear so drastic is tho prominence which is givon to these particular clauses by their being placed at the beginning of th© Bill, and tho fact that aiding and abetting is now; made an equal offonco with Committing a. strike, but tho absolute nonsense that is talked by somo people that a man has no freedom to leave his work under the Bill is beyond my comprehension. A man can leave his work, any time. All the Bill makes provision for is that a strike, which is a. combined action on the part of tho men, is made illegal. A man’s individual freedom to work or to leave his work is absolutely untouched, ail'd he is put under better conditions, even with the proposed penalty clause, than at the present time. To put tho thing in a nutshell, the question is now put before the people of New Zealand as a whole—do .they want strikes or not ? If they 110611 to revert to the old system of things, that a man can work or strike as ho pleases, it is practically done by repealing the Act hut tho unions have been told all along for some time' now' that t-liey cannot strike and have the. Act, and therefore a-clause has been put. in that if a union strikes, tlia-t in itself will cancel its registration andyeancel the award. - 44 - 5 <V*

Tho “needs” wage and “exertion” wage havo been put in for this reason. There are cases in which it is very hard to fix what, amount should bo considered a fair wage owing to the uncertainty of the term of employment. The labor, in. such cases, cannot be termed casual in tlio way that wharf labor is casual, but it is regulated by the . seasons only. A season might run for ..nine or ten months, whilst another season, owing to climatic conditions or EOino other cause, would only last six months, so that any minimum wage fiked by the Court which, might, have been a. fair wage for a man who got ton months’ work would act ns a bare living wage if he got only, six months’ work. At the present time tho Court has no power beyond fixing a minimum wage, and that wage is based on what an avorago man could earn by working pretty well full 'time. The proposal in the Bill in regard to a “needs”- and “exertion” wage is purely permissive. The Court can’t take steps in that direction at all unless both sides agree. The object of the Government, in putting that clause into the Bill is to provide that, if both parties desire, the Judge niay fix . a “needs” wage instead of a minimum wage in any particular industry. If that provision, or something similar, is not put in, it must continue on the present lines. The “exertion” wage, qan, only bo Introduced by both sides agreeing to it, and if both sides agree I do not see why .any other person should object It will be a mutual arrangement botween the men interested and the employers, and the. Judge can give an award on those lines only when asked by tho parties. There is no-compul-sion proposed. If the workers prefer that nothing at all be done, and that the dead level wage should bo continued as at present, then they need not- uea the oliuse *4l «U t