N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE

Southland Times, Issue 18829, 24 May 1920, Page 6

N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE

INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATISM. WANTED A NEW METHOD. (Contributed by the Welfare League.)

New Zealand at one time had the reputation of being the most advanced and progressive country in dealing with the vexed problems of industry. Its initiative and foresight i i grappling with economic issues were widely quoted to the credit of this j Dominion. Of recent times we seem to have lost our courage as a people and sunk into j a slough of conservative habit. Take the | mutter of industrial disputes. The general ‘ attitude is one of regarding these constantly I recurring troubles as if they were either j hxed laws of nature to be accepted in a ■ spirit of fatalism or were the ‘‘acts of God” to be humbly submitted to at all times, j Enough for the day is the dispute thereof I is about the sum total of how we are taking the present most serious industrial situation. Whether it is due to the lack of efficient leadership, or to general apathy, we are inclined to think it is both, the fact is that there exists a marked indolence in approaching the matter of adequately reviewing and readjusting the existing industrial conditions. When we get down to the consideration of proposals for adopting any new methods we find it hard to say the labour organisations or the employers’ associations are the most- conservative, because both alike want to cling to the same old routine. They go on regularly securing the settlement of this dispute and the other by strikes, conferences, conciliation or arbitration, but all the time avoid dealing with the fundamental questions (hat lie at the root of the existing conditions. Do the employers favour the establishment of industrial -councils on lines of the Whitley scheme ? They may, but if so, they do not act like it. The same can be said of the labour organisations, they may believe in establishing such councils, but they are not acting as if they did. It is clear that no such councils can he established unless by mutual conference of both sides, and we do not find either side very active in that direction.

NEW METHODS URGENTLY REQUIRED.

It is of little use talking in general terms of the need for national reconstruction, better industrial understandings between employers and employed, greater co-operation and greater enterprise. The call is not for talk in general terms but for definite action in the way of adopting new methods. The employers are not satisfied with the present industrial laws, neither are the workers. Instead of each side holding separate conferences and adopting proposals framed wholly from their own standpoint as they have always done, we submit that the time is most opportune for adopting the new method of a joint conference. Whatever is adopted.in law or in practice both the employers and workers have to carry on under it. Is it not the most commonsense plan for the parties to meet together in conference and endeavour to arrive at what principles will work best in practice ? It is true that they have never followed the method of joint conferences of employers and employed in the past, but is it not simply stupid conservatism to oppose a plan just because you have never taken the same course previously. In studying the industrial situations of various countries to-day we are forced to admit that in England, often‘ , spoken of by colonials as “Conservative England,” there is more courage and initiative being shown in meeting the new circumstances of these times with new methods than is the case in New Zealand. The lead which our dominion once gave as an industrial laboratory seems to have gone from us. We cannot believe that this is due to want of ability. The new times call very insistently for new and better methods, and we look to see the employers and workers’ federation shake off the sloth of conservative habit and grapple earnestly with the problems before us. What is the use of the stronger organisations of to-day if they cannot do as effective work in settling principles and methods as employers and workers’ unions did years ago, when their numbers were fewer and their strength not so great. We urge them to a bold policy of more progressive procedure.