"LEAPING BACKWARD"

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 261, 25 January 1928, Page 8

"LEAPING BACKWARD"

ARBITRATION COURT DEFENDED T DR. BELSHAW’S VIEWS "If compulsory arbitration u •i abolished as a preliminary * attack on wages, industrial flict is inevitable. Our arS? n " tion system has its weaknu*? but they do not justify i ts 'ration.” These sentiments are pressed by Dr. H. Belshaw p?" fessor in Economics, of Aur’nVL University College, this when he reviewed, in a thouoZ, ful summary, the remarks by Professor A. H. Tocker Canterbury College, at Melbo’url last week. TN T his interview with The Sun ' Dr - Belshaw necessarily ccnSS his comment to generalities but h recorded his concise opinion tv merits of the Arbitration Conu « mediator between employer' aJ worker, and ventured the that strikes had been reduced the establishment of the Court “Those who would abolish rh principle of compulsory industrial bitration,’* he said, “lay two charges against the Court:—First? is stated that it maintains wages ar an unduly high level; secondly thaj it shackles industry and thai elasticity which is desirable for mdS trial progress. It is argued that in consequence of these factors costs ar* maintained at a high level, and » marked disparity exists between prices in ‘sheltered’ industries (mainly manufacturing) and ‘unsheltered’ ii dustries (mainly agricultural), pri ces in the latter case being determined bv conditions overseas. It is suggested that free collective bargaining be sub. stituted for compulsory arbitration. ECONOMIC FACTORS “In reply to the contention that the present price disparity is due to the Arbitration Court, it is sufficient to point out: —

“(a) That the disparity is world-wide in extent and is due to forces which are generally operative and are net purely local in significance. Is the price disparity in the United King, dora and the United States due to the fact that there is no system of compulsory arbitration? “(b) That the disparity can bt sufficiently explained by the gross ex. pansion of overhead costs (see Bulletin No. S 3 of Cantertury Chamber of Commerce), attributable mainly to post-war over-capitalisation, the anomalous system of company taxation, the increase in distributing charges due to the initiation of site rents, the increase in the number of retail distributors, and xhe increase In the rates charged for loans.

“In short the influence of the Arbitration Court is far from being the main factor in the situation. “In reply to the second criticism, while it is agreed that the arbitration system is not sufficiently elastic, this does not provide adequate groutds for its abolition. The result of abrtition will be either weak trade unionism, or strong trade unionism in any particular trade. In the former case there is the grave danger of the growth of sweated conditions in industry. Can we face this with equanimity? In the latter case the experience of the United Kingdom and other countries shows that the restrictions on the freedom of the employer are likely to be at least as great as at present.. STRIKES REDUCED

“The assumption that collective bai* gaining will necessarily make for a more elastic system and will make easier a system of ‘payment by results,* is completely erroneous. If compulsory arbitration is abolished as a preliminary to an attack on wages, industrial conflict is inevitable. Can we balance the highly problematical gains against thi»? “It is true that there have been strikes under the Court, but to say that for this reason the Court has failed in its main object Is, I think, incorrect. It is clear that the Court has considerably reduced the number of industrial conflicts; and this being true, it has achieved its purpose. “Admittedly, our arbitration system has its weaknesses, but these do not justify its abolition, especially when the alternative has already been tried and found wanting, and when the whole trend of development elsewhere is away from laissez faire. Our aim should be the perfection of the present system, making toward greater elasticity and variety. It is significant that by far the majority of both employers and trade unionists desire, not abolition, but amendment. Can wo afford to leap backward into the dark?’*