WELLINGTON NOTES

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1920, Page 4

WELLINGTON NOTES

INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS

THE PROPOSED NATIONAL CONFERENCE.

(Our Special Correspondent)

WELjdNftTpN, June 181 , Mr Wl Pryor, .the general secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, has a long letter in the ‘f Dominion ” this morning sotting out in detail the reasons which influenced the,executive of the Federation ixj declining the invitation of tlie Labour organisations to a national industrial conference. 1 The general tenor of these reasons was indicated by tlie unofficial* statement made by Mr Pryor n few days ago, and it is necessary to quote only the concluding paragraph of his letter to give a good idea of the present attitude of the Federation towards organised labour. “So far as the New Zealand Employers’ Federation is concerned,” it runs, “it is compelled to cjecline to be a party to a conference under present conditions, and it believes it will have tlie force of public opinion behind it in carrying on the work of improving the relations between employers land workers in their own establishments in the hope that in due course the time may come when a national conference might be held without any risk of disaster to the trades and industries of the Dominion.” That, apparently, must be accepted as the hist word of the Federation on the subject, for the present, and there is no doubt it represents the views nearly enough of a majority of its members.

THE OTHER VIEW. The “ Dominion ” is unable to regard tbe reasons set out by Mr Pryor for the Federation’s refusal to accept the invitation to the conference as sound and logical. It asks its readers to believe that the Secretary has made out “a very poor case” for his principals. “Even if it led to iio agreement to co-operate in developing better and more efficient industrial organisation,” it argues, “tlie conference might yet mark a great turning point by giving the public a ready key to a sound understanding of th’e industrial situation. The whole fault to be found with the employers in their refusal to agree to a national conference is that they are neglecting the most effective means of ' marshalling public opinion in support of a sound policy of industrial reform.” Tt emphasises this point again and again in its attempt to show that the real purpose of the Labour extremists is “not tovepresent the workers, but to arouse endless antagonism between them and their employers,!’ and winds up by reasserting that the out come of a national industrial conference, in echicatitfg and enlightening the public would be highly beneficial, irrespective of any immediate approach made by the parties in industry to agreement and cooperation. PUBLIC OPINION. Naturally tlie “ extremists ” among the workers are keenly enjoying the difference of opinion between, the employers and what they are pleased to call the “ capitalistic. organ.” Nothing else, they say, could go s,o far towards justifying their repeated protests against the “arrogance of tlie, employers” as the “ Dominion’s ” rebuke of the Federation. “It proves,” one of thorn said, this morning, “that public opinion is turning our way and that the 1 Employers’ Federation is no longer regarded as tlie inspired dictator of all that is good and just for the workers. Its refusal to meet us in open conference should he the last nail in the coffin of its bolstered up reputation.” Talk of this kind is intended, of course, only to tickle the ears of the public. As n matter of fact organised Labour has been at least as shy of full publicity in the past as organised capital has been. But it would be quite true to say there are a considerable number of people, unattached to either side, who would have welcomed the proposed conference as a means of obtaining definite information concerning the differences between 'the two parties.