THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1882. THE EIGHT HOURS’ MOVEMENT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2513, 27 April 1882, Page 3

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1882. THE EIGHT HOURS’ MOVEMENT.

A meeting of considerable interest waS held on Tuesday in Dunedin, for considering the question of enforcing the eight hour system of labor by law. The meeting, which was called by the Trades and Labor Council, may bo considered to have been a very representative oue, the Mayor presiding, and several members of Parliament being there, while Mr. Stout represented the versatile intellectuality of tho province. The resolutions tho persons present were called upon to pass, and did pass unanimously, wero the following:—(1) “ That in the opinion of this meeting the eight-hour system should he encouraged in every possible way by the people of the colony.” (2.) “ That the time has now arrived when the hours of labor should be defined and legalised, in order that the value of every man’s labor may be measured by the same standard. That a Bill should be introduced into Parliament during the ensuing session to carry the same into law.” Tho seconder of motion No. 1, Mr. Bolt, said that it was now generally conceded that the hours of labor tended to tho advancement of a people. “ In ' he country where the hours were long pauperism existed, crime was rife, and wealth and the Legislature were in the hands of a minority of tho people. Where the laboring classes had a proper amount of leisure time to themselves, a spirit of inventiveness at once appeared amongst them, and tho discoveries made more than compensated for the shortness of the hours of labor.” Mr. Bracken, M.H.R., affirmed that men engaged in hard manual labor could accomplish more and batter work in eight hours a day than those working a greater number. He said further —“ It might be urged that as the eight hour system was recognised in the colony, the present agitation was useless. The matter should not be looked at from that point of view. A standard must be established, so that the system might not ho lost sight of. Of course they were not going to interfere with the rights of employers and employes to make special arrangements.” The whole question is certainly one of very considerable difficulty, and no possible harm, but a good deal of good, must be done by thoroughly ventilating it. Still we doubt if a law passed on the subject would effect much general good. As Mr. Stout said at tho meeting, “ no statute that could ever be passed would he of any avail in this matter unless the feelings of the people were with the eight hour system. They might pass 100 Acts of Parliament which might prove of little good.” The solution of the question lies in the relations existing between capital and labor. It is very evident that if the latter has the game in its own hands it can enforce a general eight hour, or for the matter of that a six hour, system. It is nonsense to talk, like Mr. Bolt, of pauperism existing, and crime being rife, where the hours of labor are long. The bad state of affairs should not be laid to the long hoars, objectionable as they may be, but to the fact that labor has not asserted i 1 self, and to the large floating criminal population existing in all old communities. As to Government fixing a standard as proposed, it is the old story in another form. Government is looked upon to do everything in this country. Government has work enough without undertaking to regulate the labor market. Speakers at the meeting laid great stress on the fact that certain classes of Government servants were undoubtedly overworked. Mr. Wilson, for instance, held that tho hours of telegraph operators and locomotive drivers were too long, while another speaker said that men on the railways were sometimes kept at overwork for which in many instances they were not paid. Wo presume, however, that if the attention of the Legislature was thoroughly called to these oases they would be sot right. Theoretically, at all events. Government servants should be in a better position even than other employes. They serve the country at large, and it is evident that if the eighthour movement finds favour with the constituencies, they should be the first to feel tho benefit of tho idea. But to get the Government to apply the system to its own servants is a very different matter to asking tho Legislature to pass a law affecting the general relations between capital and labor. Government has work enough to do to protect those who are more or less unable to protect themselves. What is known as Mr. Bradshaw’s Bill—namely, the Act passed in 1872 to protect females and children in workrooms and factories, together with the subsequent amendments, is a perfectly legitimate line of legislation to take, because females and children are among tbo weaker sections of the community that require, in many instances, the protection of the law. But it seems to us that the classes that gain their livelihood by manual labour have proved that they are very well able to take care of themselves. It is, to our mind, more or less of an insult to their intelligence and acknowledged power to propose that a series of laws shall bo passed to guide them through the paths of life. Capital certainly does not domineer over labour in this country. For labour to apply to Government for protection appears to us to be more or less of a f»-ce. A proper organisation among the various sections of the working classes can easily effect what it is proposed should he obtained through the agency of the law. We fully admit the desirability of a day’s work being confined in cases of hard labor of any sort to eight hours; we simply wish to impress tho fact that anything in reason tho working man may require is easily within his grasp without applying to tho Legislature. There is of course a limit which cannot bo passed. When the cost of labor renders the employment of capital unremunerative it is evident that the employee has gone further than he should have done. Capital then ceases to bo used, and tho working man suffers by tho recoil. But short of this point tho capitalist is, where labor looks after itself, at the mercy of those he employs. As to the idea of any action taken by Government fixing an ideal and standard day of labor, as suggested by Mr. Stout wo look upon it as altogether empirical, We fancy Mr. Stout would be puzzled tc explain what he really meant. The difference in degrees of labor would proven! any such notion being carried oat to t practical issue. Some descriptions ol labor can be carried on with great east over eight hours. The difference of tht

work done by a billiard-marker and a navvy in a given time is at once apparent. Where, then, is the line to be drawn between the classes of labor that are to be affected by legislation and those that are not ? No—the general law of demand and supply is the only one that can bo trusted to settle the question. It is a natural law, and sufficiently elastic to meet the complications of the case. Hard and fast legislation on such a subject would only lead to confusion and to the ultimate repeal of any laws that might be passed. We certainly sympathise with the general views hold by the Otago Trades and Labor Council; but wo think that it has got into a wrong groove. It should rely on the power, resolution, and intelligence of the working classes, and not imagine that everything is to be done by Act of Parliament.