The Hastings Standard Published Daily FRIDAY, SEPT. 17, 1897. SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE.

Hastings Standard, Issue 428, 17 September 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily

FRIDAY, SEPT. 17, 1897. SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that we can do.

The broods of labor agitators that exist in the four centres of the colony and appear to find a livelihood in stirring up strife have hitherto found the Conciliation Boards somewhat subservient and disposed to settle disputes on the happy-go-lucky principle of splitting the difference. The workmen had merely to make exorbitant demands to secure more than was reasonable, but a change appears to have been instituted by the Conciliation Board of Wellington. The unionists in the furniture trade, numbering less than one-third of the total of those so employed, conceived the idea, aided no doubt by the agitatois, of working up a dispute. A formal demand was made on certain of the employers, involving boy labor, piecework "and the minimum wage, and when the demand was met by a blank refusal a case was made for the Conciliation Board. And here it is necessary to comment on what appears the harshness of the Act. The dispute had nothing to do with several of the employers who did not employ union men. The non-unionists were satisfied, or appeared to be so, and there was no question of non-unionists being underpaid, but because a section of the workers were displeased and saw fit to dispute certain matters with a section of the employers the whole of the masters were included in iho appeal to the Conciliation Board. That the workers were not warranted by the facts in their agitation is amply demonstrated by the award of the Conciliation Board.

The points raised and the decision of the Board are worth recounting. On the question of apprentices the claim of the workers was for one apprentice to five men. The Board " split the difference" apparently and decided upon one apprentice to three men, but as boys not engaged as apprentices do not account there is not much gain to the workers. Then with respect to piece work, it was stated by some of the men that it was impossible to make a log, and the Union demanded that piece work should be abolished. The Board declined to make any recommendation, deeming it inadvisable to disturb the existing st ite of things. The minimum wage demanded by the agitators was 10s per day, and the award of the Board

fixed the minimum wage at Bs, which under the circumstances seems fair enough, but which will scarcely please the brood of agitators. One of the greatest of the demands was that unionists should have the preference, and 011 this point the Conciliation Board has framed its award m terms similar to those sanctioned by Judge Dennis ton when officiating on the Arbitration Board. There is to be no preference given and no discrimination shown, and it is well that it is so. Some men prefer not to be associated with unions, and it would be hard if they were to be penalised on that account. The award does not impinge on the freedom of contract. The above are the principal features of the claims of the L nionists and the award of the Conciliation Board. If the demands of the agitators are analysed it will be seen that they were positively unreasonable and outrageous. Boy labor was to be excluded. The men were to receive 10s a clay whether worth that amount or not, and thee being no piece work the best workers would have no inducement to do their best. The level of the workmen in a factory would bo the level of the worst worker. The whole of the claims were marked by selfishness, and it will do the agitators a world of-good to meet with a sharp rebuff.

Unionism rightly applied and wisely used is undoubtedly a good thing for the working classes, but the workers will be doing themselves more harm than good by trusting their affairs to the self-seeking crew of popularityhunters. The reasonable demands of the workers will always receive consideration and will always be supported by the public, but many such exhibitions as that recently enacted in Wellingtons will be dangerous to the cause of Unionism. There is to the general taxpayer a serious matter in these trade disputes, for the costs of conciliation and arbitration are paid out of the consolidated fund. Take the case of the furniture trades dispute in Wellington. There are live members on the Conciliation Board and they receive a guinea a day for their services. The Board was engaged for eight day?-;, which means an expense of £42 ; besides that the shorthand writer's services must bo paid for, and in this case it would scarcely be less than £lO. We have thus an expenditure of £~>2. Small and insignificant though the sum may be it comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and that being so the community lias a right to demand that great care be taken in the presentment of -jases to the Conciliation Board. In the Wellington furniture trades dispute the Union men had not a leg to stand on, and appear to have literally forced a dispute upon the employers. This should be made impossible. Then again, the hearing of the cases is spun out to a great length by the entire want of system or rule of procedure ; much irrelevant matter is introduced and much time is wasted, and in all this there is no consideration for the taxpayers. It would be wholesome if the fees payable to the Conciliation Board by the Government were limited, and the services of the shorthand writer dispensed with. The parties to the dispute should pay for the shorthand notes. The case under dispute shows up many of the weak spots of this branch of the labor legislation, and it would be well to urge upon the Government the necessity of introducing suitable amendment.