ARBITRATION AND POLEMICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 November 1927, Page 4

ARBITRATION AND POLEMICS.

THE STORM CENTRE IN INDUSTRY.

It is an interesting commentary on the uncertainty of political experiment that the Industrial Arbitration systems of Aust.tdia and New Zealand which were initiated lor the purpose of bringing about industrial peace have of recent limes become the storm centres of industrial 1011llict and dissension.

The Act passed in New Zealand in 18!)4 aimed at three things; (1) The compulsory settlement ot disputes which might result in stoppages of industry. C2) The encouragement of the formation of Industrial Unions. i.l) The prevention ol sweating conditions in industry.

Since then we have had I rom tim.- j to lime an increase of State regulation and more and more ol polities injected into industry until Hie whole field of industrial relations has become the ground of pitched political battles The Industrial Unions liave become in large measure political bodies attached to a party in polities. The earlier sweating conditions have been provided against by other means than this Act. The settlement of disputes lias become an esthblislieu system which it functions in the direction of creating numerous disputes which might never otherwise arise, and which would not in any case result in stoppages ol trade or ind'istrv. I-'rom the first objective ol pro- ( venting strikes and lock-outs, lo political action the system has been 't ried to the point of making it a State regulated method ol artilically fixing the economic conditions under which our industries may continue to operate. With this general political direction it is exceedingly difficult to secure an impartial, judicial or scientific. examination of the Arbitration system and its results.

The subject is now made one of polemics on all hands. Not only is this so hut the con fusion of ideas oil this question is accentuated -by the fact that those directly all'ected by decisions of the Arbitration Court have pronounced lit various limes contradictory opinions on the whole

system. When Labour organisations have comlemeued the Act and urged thei.- fellow workei s to have done with the whole restriction machine employers Associations have denounced such views and upheld the Act as neeeesstry in tin- interest ol all concerned. Again when employees have protested against this law as

one of bondage* the Labour leaders and Unions ‘have demonstrated in juvoiir of Arbitration and cried out that the employers were sec-king lo destiny Unionism and l.wer the workers standard of living. I. VBOUIUS VIEW!? t :)N1- USING. Ah I!. E. Holland, M.P., has introduced a deputation of l.abour men to the Minister of Labour in support ! f Hu- system now in operation. Not t.'i long back however, Mr Holland wrote condemning the Arhitiiitiou system and rclonvd lo il as "Labour it; Leg froils." Air J . Roberts. Secretary Alliance ol Labour, has denounced the Act as a clog upon tin* v,takers. llotii Ik- and his Alliance hare advised the Unions as they become strong to repudiate the Arbitration Act and rely on their own power of combination. Air T. Illoe.lwortli, of Auckland, lias advised the workers to have done with the- An. He is at least consistent for even now lie says "I would not he sorry il the Act were repealed.” Whilst those views were and ai> c-xpicsseil against the Act tile t mons are being roused throughout the Douiiinon to pit-test that they want the Act to he left as their protectois. What does such conllict of opinion mein? It is just that the issue is not one ol industry hut of politics. The tael its of politics are brought into pl|iy. It the other side are for it we are against and if they are against it we are for it. There is no light from which polemical discussion and industry sulfers in consequence. THE GOOD OF INDUS'! RY. It is time that this Compulsory Arbitration system were cxltmineii not on political grounds or partyviews hut on tile economic basis ol what good or evil is it doing to the industries of our country.

We are told that it prevents strikes j and lock-outs. Is this so and if so! to what extent*' May it not lie < reditod witli preventing stoppages ol industry where such would never line occurred. New Zealand lias never had strikes or lock-ruts except in a few of the large industries md some strikes have occurred in these even with the Arbitration Act. That it creates disputes as well as settling; them is- iiulisputa.liie. Roes it provide greater activity in industry, better •‘workmanship, more harmonious relations between labour and management or, add in other ways to the stork of wealth produced, from which source alone both urges and profits can come? These are tlie (pieslions lie siihmiL on which this system of Industrial Arbitration should he tested. Instead of tinkering with the system and making it the shuttlotock of contending politi<al fact ions the Government would he wiser to put itself in tlie position of being able to show beyond doubt that this system confers substantial benefits on industry and the people or repeal the Act and leave the industries to work out their own economic salvation.

The scheme -is in essence an attempt to regulate the course of economic law. Is it lining so, or is it merely closing up one channel to drive the tidal waves into another On this vital issue the cries of partisans for and against tlie system appear too useless. What is wanted is an examiMition of .scientific deliberation with a following determination to either maintain the system in general application or end it. (Contributed by tile New Zealand Welfare League).