ARBITRATION SYSTEM

Hokitika Guardian, 27 January 1928, Page 2

ARBITRATION SYSTEM

DR BKLSHAW REPLIES TO PROFESSOR TUCKER.

AUCKLAND. Jan. 25. “If compulsory arbitration is abolished as a preliminary to an attack on wages, industrial conflict is inevitable, Our arbitration system has its weaknesses. but they do not justify its abolition.

These sentiments were expressed by Dr H. Belshaw, Professor of Economics of Auckland University College, this morning, when he reviewed the remarks by Professor A. li. Tucker, of Canterbury College, at Melbourne. ••Those who would abolish the principle of compulsory industrial arbitration.” he said, “lay two main charges against the Court. First, it is stated that it maintains wages at an unduly high level; and. secondly, that it shackles industry, and prevents that elasticity which is desirable for industrial progress. It is argued that, in consequence of these factors, costs are maintained at a high level, and a marked disparity exists between prices in sheltered industries (mainly manufacturing) and unsheltered industries (mainly agricultural), prices in the latter case being determined by conditions overseas. It is suggested that free collective bargaining be .substituted for compulsory arbitration.

“In reply to the contention that the present price disparity is due to the Arbitration Court, it is sufficient to point out ;

“(a) That the disparity is worldwide in extent and is due to forces which are generally o)>orative and are not purely local in significance. Is the price disparity in the United Kingdom and the I'nted States due to the fact that there is no system of compulsory allocation ?

■‘(b) That the disparity can be sufficiently explained by the gross expansion of overhead costs (see Bulletin X. 3l) of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce) attributable mainly to post-war over capitalisation, the anomalous system of company taxation, increase in distributing charges due to inflation of site rents, increase in number of retail distributors and increase in rates charged for loans. In short, the influence of arbitration is far from being the main factor in the situation. “In reply to the second criticism, while it was agreed that the arbitration system is not sufficiently elastic, this does not provide adequate grounds for its abolition. The result of abolition w ill be either weak trade unionism of any particular trade. In the former case, there is grave danger of the growth of sweated conditions in industry. Can we face this with equanimity? In the latter case the experience of the United Kinkdoni and other countries shows that restrictions on the freedom of the err"l iver are likely to he at least as great as at present. “The assumption that collective bargaining will necessarily make for

more elastic* system of payment by results is completely erronous. If compulsory arbitration is abolished us a preliminary to an attack on wages, industrial conflict is inevitable. Can we balance highly problematical gains against this? It is* true that there have been strikes tinder the Court, but to say that for this reason the Court has failed in its main object is. 1 think, incorrect. It is clear that the Court has considerably reduced the number of industrial conflicts, and. this lveing true, it has achieved its purpose. Admittedly, our arbitration system has its weaknesses, but these do not justify its abolition, especially when the alternative lias already *>een tried and found wanting and when the whole trend of development is away from laissez faire. Our aim should lie perfection of the present system, making towards greater elasticity and variety. It is significant that by far the majority of Wh employers and trade unionists* desire not abolition but amendment. Can we afford to leap backward into the dark?” I