ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1928, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

A CRITICAL SURVEY. DISCUSSION BY ECONOMIC SOCIETY. CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 6. The Arbitration* Court was discussed by members of the Canterbury branch of the Economic Society last evening. Professor A. LT. Tocker led the discussion against the Court, and Mr G. H. Thompson was the leader of the advocates of the Court.

ipn the Court as follows Over regula|j.on hampers production. State wagefixing .leans unduly , heavily on the cost of living /basis -the reinti ve attractivenpss -tof ,- jobs - under- Coiirt awa,iyls: enemirages the drift to towns; sheltered industries and high costs are. passed op; awards remove the incentive of ..the' vari able rate of piece-work-.; the Court operates where it is not required for peace, ancl fails where it is required. “What, is the alternative to the Arbitration Court?” asked Mr Thompson. “If differences between employers* and employees cannot be settled by a spirit of conciliation, a return would have to- be made to strike conditions. The- worker must be protected, and the Arbitration Court.while it has certain faults, is the only solution to the setfclefnent of differences in industry. “The Court has to settle any . subject which comes ’before it as a matter of dispute,” said Professor Toelcer. “It has to abide bv the terms laid down by the award.” In fixing a wide variety of wages, the Court bad entirely lost sight of the fact thatthe scale of wages. affected the cost of 'goods. The industries where the Court functioned were confined mainly to those in New Zealand. These were limited, and bore no relation to other industries. It must Vie remembered that the Court covered only a small part of the Dominion. Only a quarter of the workers in New Zealand were unionists, and the remaining <5 per cent- of workers did not come within the scope of the Court. There was comparatively little payment ot waves above Court awards. Thus the worker bad little incentive to advance as his wages' would not be affected. It was essential to develop to the utmost the incentive in the worker to progress and improve. The Court, when set up after the Strike in 1890, was intended .to discipline militant unionists.

It was said that Without the ‘Court there wquld he great industrial strife. But it must be remembered that the dominant unit in j New Zealand was the one-man business. There were about three employees to every, one employer. There were no evidences of “’sweating” conditions in New Zealand. mainly owing to the higher prices and the extensive expansion in industry. AVhiie wages went on rising, industry was extending, and a greater demand was created for employment. The sheltered industries created unemployment. The unemployed could be absorbed only through -the expansion of unshelterd industries. Wages should be fixed in relation to the process of the industry and not to the class and nature of the work.

Mr, Thompson said that he did not possess a detailed knowledge of the Arbitration Court. He conceded that there were many weaknesses in the Arbitration Court, but the Court, in liis opinion, was of great value to the country. Payment by results differed greatly from payment by the hour. There had to be some principles whereby the value of a man’s labour could be determined. The wage side was fixed by a bargain between the employee and the employer. Often It happened that the employee was in a position to compete with his employer in the same business. When one reviewed most of the industries, it was found, however, that it was perfectly impossible for the employee to compete with his employers. If, by some miracle, the people were educated enough for four-fifths of them to become managers,- a big drop in output in industry would result. It was as easy for an employee to find another employer as it was for an employer to,find another employee. But the. employee had much less bargaining power than the employer. If the employee entered into an individual agreement with the "employer he would have ito bear the result attendant to any ;drop in industry. The Court strove to fix >a scale of wage satisfactory to both employer ancl employee and relative to the state of the industry conberned. Without the Court the employees might easily be forced down to “sweated” conditions. The Court not only influenced the industries that came within its scope, bnt most of the oilier industries as well. It had fteen a', very long struggle until the employer had been forced to enter into a bargain with a trades union. Strike followed demand, and gradually the futility of the struggle became apparent to both sides, and the spirit of conciliation grew. The only alternative method in either economic or international a(l airs to fight and struggle was peaceful arbitration. The* recent coal strike in England resulted in a general strike embracing four-fifths of the industries. It proved a failure. But il there were no arbitration, a return would be made to settlement, of differences by strike. Productive value was a mere phrase, and could not bo used as a means of arbitration. So long as industries made their own bargains, industrial disaster would follow. The productive .value of industry had grown to a great degree in New Zealand. The argument that there was only a market for cheap goods was a fallacy. The only sheltered industries, claim-

<-d the -peaker. were a few professions such as politics, etc. All the world over, men were striving to obtain work and thus increase the productive power of the country, but were unable to get employment. When the time of pressure came, men had to work foi cheaper wages in order that people n secured positions might obtain cheapen goods. The productive capacity of the world and the economic position of the worker demanded that the worker be paid a decent wage. The Arbitration Court bad standardised the various industries. A general discussion on the question followed.