Rural Workers and Arbitration Award

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 181, 21 October 1927, Page 13

Rural Workers and Arbitration Award

EXCLUSION NOT FAVOURED AUTHORITATIVE OPINIONS EXEMPTIONS for all rural -*-- i workers from the awards of the Arbitration Court is not looked on with much favour in any direction. Some of the provisions of the Arbitration Act amendments were taken to pieces for examination by various authorities interviewed this morning. “If the amendments go through as they are the Act will be more a thing of shreds and patches than ever,” said Mr. T. Bloodworth. “I maintain, my opinion expressed in THE SUN yesterday that the system would be better entirely abolished. It has outlived its usefulness.” On the point of constitution Mr. Bloodworth, who has been very successful before the court, said the present system of assessors sitting with the judge had been very satisfactory. He had never been unfairly treated by either party. The permanent assessors gained a knowledge of the general principles of arbitration though they might be less familiar with technical details, but in the proposed organisation there would be men who had the technical information but would be deficient in the important point of the general principles. They in Mr. Bloodworth’s opinion would be far less likely to give satisfaction. The 12 months’ rule would work out in practice for the selection of arbitrators to exclude men who had such close connection with the industries such as a union secretary. That, however, would not be a vital point because the most important position would be that of advocate. If the amendments become law the workers would gain nothing from any of them and their organisations would, be more shackled than ever. “WILL PRODUCE BITTERNESS” Asked for his views on the exemption of the primary industries, Mr. A. E. Robinson, secretary of the Farmers’ Union, said that it was what the New Zealand Farmers’ Union had asked for but was not the opinion exclusively held in the Auckland branch. Uneconomic wages fell back as a burden on the primary producers though people largely did not realise this. Among the primary workers he thought freezing workers generally were in receipt of uneconomic wages and so were shearers. Personally he thought the amendments would produce too much bitterness and he was rathe*' sorry to see the form they had taken. In Mr. Robinson’s opinion it was a political business, and he did not think it was worth it for the farmers. BETTER HEARING FOR EMPLOYERS “The changes in the court,” said Mr. Albert Spencer, president of the Employers’ Association, ‘might be very beneficial, and if the side of the employers gets a better hearing than it has been getting then we will be quite satisfied. “We don’t growl about high wages but we do complain about the conditions awarded against which there is no improvement in production shown. From that angle I regard the introduction of piecework as an admirable . thing, as it will tend to correct the lag in production. The arbitrator system in the amendment would have to be carefully watched lest it should react detrimentally to the interests of the workers or employers. Mr. Spencer would prefer that permanent arbitrators should be appointed from every industry. “The greatest mistake,” said Mr. Spencer, “was the abolition of awards covering workers in the dairy factories. “The strike conference proposed was a very sound point. “RETROGRADE STEP” •'lt’s a most retrograde step and will land industry in chaos,” said Mr. J. P. Johns, secretary to the Dairy Factory Workers’ Union. “Our cheese workers get £4 Is for 60 hours a week of seven days for eight months of the year. They couldn’t get less. “They have never had anything to thank the court for. It’s foolish to exhort men to go into the country for a standard of living such as that. They are without a doubt the poorest paid of adult male workers in the Dominion. The Arbitration Court is the best friend the farmer ever had and the Government is simply taking advantage of the surplus labour to bring wages down to a barbarous level. Any fair-minded person can agree that our wages could not be any less or our conditions any worse.” The chief rural workers organised by the New Zealand Workers’ Union ! were shearers and shed hands, thresh- j ing-mill workers, musterers, packers, I and drovers. ABOLITION WOULDN’T MATTER Mr. G. C. Stove, secretary of the ! Alliance of Labour, and a member of j the New Zealand Workers’ Union, j stated that in his opinion it would not matter if the Act were entirely abolished, but the present amendments were heading for trouble. Most of the workers had been organised without any preference clause. The rural workers had nothing to thank the Arbitration system for and their exclusion was simply the act of : a weak Government throwing a sop to the squatters who howled loudest. He pointed out that the awards provided safeguards for the farmers as ; well as the workers and in the case of the shearers they would find that out in the quality of the work they got. The Auckland branch the Alliance j

t UL 13.1, of Labour is to discuss the amendments and issue a statement later.

“WORKERS LIVING IN FOOL’S PARADISE”

DUNEDIN OPINIONS Press Association. DUNEDIN, To-day. Referring to the arbitration proposals the president of the Employers’ Association. Air. Hayward, said that the reversion to piecework was splendid. New Zealanders would have to realise the necessity of work. They were living in a fool’s paradise at present. He did not like the proposed new constitution of the court, however. It would prevent the coordination of awards. Mr. J. Robinson, secretary of the Otago Labour Council, considered that the Government was using unemployment as a weapon to reduce wages. The exemption of the farmers was illogical. They had been notoriously bad payers, always anxious to get rid of the court.

In this legislation the Government had fulfilled one of the prime duties to financial interests it had set out to do when put in office.