THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1907. AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8469, 21 June 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1907. AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT

The President of the Arbitration Court (Mr Justice Sim), at a sitting held in Napier, yesterday, stated thajt it was ridiculous to take profits into consideration in fixing wages. A union representative replied that such an opinion struck at the very base of the Act, and rendered it useless to the workers. Mr Justice Sim remarked, as must be apparent to everyone, that if. the profit sharing principle were admitted, and in one district one employer lost money and. another made large profits, they 'the Court) would have to fix different wages for each, or, perhaps,. they would be asked to average it, which would be unreasonable. The Court would not consider profit-sharing at all. The decision of His Honor is unquestionably right, and it seems to us that it is one of a most important character. The union representative, in the reply which - we htive already mentioned, completely "gives the show away." That representative gave expression to an opinion which some unionists have of the Arbitration Act, and it is as absurd, as unreasonable, and as unjust as it can possibly be. For instance, how are profits going to be assessed? The production of books, however carefully they may be kept in a ccordance with the laws of accountancy, will not actually reveal what are "profits" for the purposes of fixing a wages award. The ability and energy of one employer differeth from another, even "as one star differeth from another in magnitude and glory." We will suppose that there are two employers, whose profits are equal, but it does not follow that the year's work in each case is of equal value. There are many different questions to be considered in connection with different businesses, and no Court, however wise or learned, could possibly say, as a matter of complete justice between man and man, what actually were profits. If the idea of the union representative, already quoted, is a sound one, then where

there ie an actual loss in the working ,of a business the employees engaged in that business should work for something less than nothing; there should at least be a sliding scale of wages, but even this has never been suggested by the Labour Party. But the statement that the ruling of Mr Justice Sim strikes at the base of the "Act is entirely wrong. The Arbitration Act was not passed to proportion employers' profits amongst employees, but to ensure the , payment of fair wages; to prevent the sweating of employees. It is quite as wrong to sweat an employer as -to sweat an employee, but the Labour Unions are, apparently, quite willing to sweat employers to the utmost farthing. The duty .of the Arbitration Court is, primarily, to fix fair, or minimum wages, or a fair living iwage—not maximum wages. That minimum wages should become maximum wages is, possibly, a . matter of indifference to employers, but to employees it is a serious problem, For the worker, as well as the employer, there should always be an Incentive. If minimum wages become, in fact, maximum wages, there is a strong tendency to destroy incentive. The principal duty of the Arbitration Court is to see that fair—not high—wages are paid to all employees.