The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1920. LIMITATION OF OUTPUT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 June 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1920. LIMITATION OF OUTPUT.

Although the dominant note of after-war reconstruction is that of greater production, the trend of labor is in the opposite direction—higher wages and lower output- At Dunedin recently the Inspector of Awards filed a claim of £IOO against the Engineers' Union in respect of an alleged bi-each of award whereby the union took proceedings to defeat the provisions of the award by preventing piecework at Reid and Gray's. The firm, early this year, introduced a system encour-1 aging the men to produce more work, but, though it was accepted, it only lasted twelve days, and then suddenly stopped. The me a were earning practically a fifty per cent increase on ordinary rates, and were willing to continue,l but the union interfered and put an end to the system. It will be remembered that at the hearing of the tailoring trade dispute at New Plymouth lately, it was shown that, under the team system, workers wer,e able to earn fifty per cent higher wages, and to produce clothing at reasonable rates. At the hearing of a similar dispute at Christchurch on Tuesday, the president of the Arbitration Court drew attention U the success of the team system at New Plymouth, whereupon the Union representative said: "That system robs the workers of their individuality and makes slaves of women," to which the president replied that the women were strong and intelligent looking, and they resisted interference with the conditions under which they were working. The Union advocate must have been very hard up for a reason when he gave utterance to such absurd remarks, Such men rave and rant about the tyranny of employers and capitalists, but they demonstrate conclusively that there exists no such tyranny as that wielded by union leaders. Writing-in 1916, on the subject of "Labor After the War," Mr. G. N. Barnes, the well-known and trusted British Labor leader, said:—

"We are passing away from the conception of employer and employed as benefactor and beneficiary, and wa are coming to the conception of' the employer and employed as joint servants of the community. In dealing with after-war problems, we may get a step nearer the realisation of that ideal. .. . . Experience will have proved that piece-work, when prices are properly guarded, had been largely shorn of its evils . . . The employers will be wise if they agree to terms of peace on the basis of a 48 hours week, and a system of payment by results, in which the adjustment of piece-work prices between organised employers on the one hand, and organised workers on the other, w'.ll form an integral part."

Contrast this statesmanlike pronouncement with the eases cited above, and it will at once be apparent that the old idea still survives, on the part of some labor advocates, that the workers' welfare can only be won by war. This conclusion' is emphasised by the movement made by the Australian Workers' Union, whereby an amalgamation has been consummated with the N.Z. Workers' Union, Clearly such an amalgamation is for offensive purposes, and, as such is a distinct menace to industry. Moreover it bears a sinister aspect in relation to the evasion of penalties for breaches of the law of NeW, 7 Zealand, m»\

much as qrilers may be issued from Australia direct, and the arm of our law—long as it is—will fail to vindicate its edicts. The menace is one that should be tackled by Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity- The outstanding feature of the industrial problem at the present time is thij great effort that is being made to bring about harmony between the employers and the workers with a view to greater production, and placing mutual interests on a satisfactory basis. In his -review of the Whitley report, Mr. J. H. Thomas, M.P., another British Labor leader, after referring to the changes brought about by the war, said: "All these changes will necessitate a re-organisation of our industrial methods, with a view to the maximum output being obtained. To secure this, some new method in the relationship between capital and labor is inevitable," and he adds he knew of no scheme which provided the' germs of a real solution more than the Whitley scheme of joint committees to settle the hours of labor and wages, as well as management, health, legislation, and everything pertaining to the daily life of the workers. "The greatest curse of industry is mutual distrust," said Mr. Theodore T. Taylor, another "English M.P., when advocating a system of labor co-partnership and profit-sharing, adding:

"Surely as between the two extremes of a soulless and tyrannical individualism, and an equally soulles's and tyrannical collectivism, that step (profit-sharing and co-partnership) is the sound, safe, and sensible middta course! The initiative lies with th« employer."

Apparently the labor leaders in the Dominion prefer industrial war to peace. The wonder is that the workers are so blind to their own interests that they allow themselves to be victimised by their leaders, instead of coming to satisfactory arrangements to pull one way with the employers and obtain higher remuneration for their labor and develop a sense of responsibility, as well as thrift, independence and self respect.