LABOUR LEGISLATION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 927, 6 December 1910, Page 3

LABOUR LEGISLATION.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HON. J A, MILLAR, MINISTER EOR LABOUR

Sir. —We wish to address to you, being the representative of organised labour in the House, a few words on the subject oi consistency, and we have chosen this method as being less cumbersome and (Scotch blood running through us !) less expensive than the customary deputation. Indeed, we may plead a certain weary distrust of the results of deputations for reasons which will subsequently appear. Some sage has defined happiness as the sense of constant progress towards a desirable object. Progress however is a purely relative term. The national debt of New Zealand, for instance progresses in one way, the Swiss avalanche whereon rests a village rushing towards its doom at the rate of one millionth part of a millemetre per hundred years, also progresses in quite another way. Taking these two as illustrations of the extremes of progress, we are forced to the conclusion that the latter is a fair definition of the rate at which industrial matters progress beneath the beneficieutsway of the present Government, and under the immediate guidance of yourself, the Department of .Labour, and presumably the Employers Federation, and in spite of this “constant progress” we are not happy. In April 1909, the contract system, which owed its inception to the admitted ability of Mr W. Pryor, was started in the flaxmilliug industry. Full particulars of this were laid before you by a deputation, and you promised should the facts be borne out to introduce legislation nullifying this attempt to defeat the Act, such legislation would be brought down “that session if possible.” That the facts slated were borne out was proved by your letter of loth December, 1909, wherein you stated regarding a proposed amendment. “In this bill I propose to put a clause dealing with the contract system, which I hope will meet the case and also meet with the approval of the House. I hope to have this bill circulated shortly.” With this confirmation of your definite promise before us we waited. We waited with what patience we might until July 1910, when we again reminded you by letter of your pledge, and upon receipt of your reply we laid before each member of the House a circular containing the main facts of the contract system along with Mr Pryor’s views thereon, part of which ran as follows: “In the first place, Mr Pryor considered it would mean the salvation of the flax-milling industry in the Wellington district but beyond that it would also have far-reaching effects in any industry to which the contract system was applicable, inasmuch as it clearly affirmed the principle that the establishment of the relation of employer and contractor, instead of master and servant, released the parties thereto from the provision of any award. Therefore in any industry to which the contract system can be applied, when a bona-fide contract establishing the relation of employer and contractor has been entered into, within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court, the parties to the contract are not bound by the provisions of any existing award. Mr Pryor himself does not hesitate to describe it as one of, if not the most important interpretations ever made in the Arbitration Court.” We prefer to take the view of “our friend the enemy” as being free from any suggestion of bias in our favour. We claim to be good judges of the accuracy of such views (it is our tails that will be twisted !) and we certainly think that Mr Pryor has not overstated the case above. “In any industry to which the contract system can be applied,” i.e., in nearly every one, the award therein existing is held at the pleasure and mercy of the Employers Federation. We challenge you to contradict this statement. lu April 1909, you admitted the system was an Award beater ; in December of the same year you confirmed it ; in July 1910, you reconfirmed your opinion—and now the bill doing away with this system has been put back again till next session ! We would here say cleaily and distinctly that as far as this Union is concerned the amendment may as well be put back till after November, 1911, We are weary alike of a Minister and an Administration whose main doctrine would appear to be the almighty attribute that “a thousand years in their sightjare but as a day.” To conclude with allow us to use an illustration from an eastern source. A dervish met a camel in the desert “O brother,” said the dervish “your lip is very crooked.” “But,” queried the camel “what is their straight about me that you should take exception to my lip.” It is impossible, in the space at our disposal, to do more than deal with the “lip” of the matter, but, if you wish to see how ministerial slackness and Governmental apathy find their reflex in departmental dilatoriness, we shall be pleased to provide you with samples. For the present we ask you to bear in mind that the Arbitration Act exists not by pleasure of the Government, but by courtesy of the Government’s ally, the Employers Federation of New Zealand.—We are dear sir, Richard H. Dalhousie, president; Percy T. Robinson, secretary of Mauawatu Flaxmills Employees’ Union.