ARBITRATION AND WAGES

Hokitika Guardian, 21 March 1931, Page 2

ARBITRATION AND WAGES

1 (By “Gold Nib,” in “Financial Times.”)

The Government lias at Jast yielded to the insistent demand for the reduction of internal costs to correspond With external prices, and the emergency session of Parliament is called for this purpose. Reduction of cost involves a revision of the whole scale of salaries and wages, but particularly the rigid award wages. The Government has been applauded by practical:,v all section of the community except by the Labour Party, or, rather, by the so-called leaders of that party, and their opposition is levelled at the reduction of wages. They profess to lie lighting on behalf of the rank and file of the workers, whose standard of living would be lowered by the reduction of wages, but that ?s pure eye-wash, for they are fighting for the maintenance of their own wages and perquisites and status. The Prime .Minister, in his manifesto proposes to accord to the Arbitraetion Court the power of revising awards immediately, which is by no meitns- new, for similar power was given. to the Court during the economic crisis of 1921-22. Despite the opposition of Labour members of Parliament! this amendment is certain to pass.

It is now obvious that the operations of the Act are unfair, unreason-

able, and detrimental to the moral, political and economic welfare of the people, The good intentions o*T the ; framers of the original Act have been defeated, Tfie Unions are now very iarg&l political: machines, and that perhaps was an inevitable develop- | pient of the truckling of politicians to the unions. When it iyas discovered that they could force eonceseiqnsi from the Government it was but natural that they should believe that they coqld do better for themselves by forming a political party of (heir own ami hating their own representatives in Parliament. Labour Unions are now hotbeds of polities, and the rank and file imbile politics from union seretaries, some of whom are alleged to be foreigners, and from agitators. Since the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act must be amended, it seems desirable that Parliament should review the whole system in the light of recent experience. it would be idle to assume that the system of compulsory arbitration as we know it has worked smoothly or justly. It has not prevented strikes, but it has stopped lock-outs, which in itself is one-sided and unfair. In the last Monthly Abstract it is shown that in the nine months to the end of September, 1980, there were 38 industrial disputes, 'involving 37 firms. Coni mining was responsible for 20 disputes, shipping for 8, meat-freezing for 3, and sawmilling and gold-mining for 1 each. The number of workers affected was 4306 ,tlk> number of working days lost was 22,505, and the approximate loss in wages £23,984. It is admitted by close observers that compulsory arbitration works out unsatisfactorily, and there is a strong demand for optional arbitration. The klenl system would aim to bring the parties in dispute into close consultation and discuss all matters while seated round the table. A spirit of give-and-take would more likely ani- j mate the delegates at a round-table conference than is possible before the Court, The Labour unions should themselves do this work, and not expect the Court to do it for them, as is the case at present, and the work is not done satisfactorily. The judicial atmosphere is not conductive to amity; on the contrary, the Labour advocates are at nil times endeavouring to score points. There is no doubt that preference to unionists is,. from the theoretical point of view, ideal, but this should he voluntarily conceded hv the employers and not made a compulsory condition of an award. The Arbitration Act has been condemned by experts, and it is significant that, apart from Australia, no other country has considered it worth while to adopt our system of compulsory arbitration. The conditions riling at present cal] for the repeal of the Act, but it can be well understood that an attempt to do so would be strenuously resisted by those who have acquired vested interests through the operations of the Act.