THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1907. A FORCIBLE ADDRESS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8526, 2 September 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1907. A FORCIBLE ADDRESS.

In view of the proposed further legislation in connection with the Arbitration Act, the address delivered recent'.y by Mr Scott, at the Employers' Federation in Wellington, is worthy of special notice. Mr Scott's remarks were of a furcible character, and though, far from agreeing with all of the speaker's utterances, we are inclined to the opinion that there was a goud deal of truth in some of Mr Scott's contentions. For instance, Mr Scott said that "never were the workers of the colony more discon--1 tented or had friction been greater than it was to-day." This allegation cai scarcely be described as being absolutely accurate, yet, at the same time, it contains a substratum of truth. There is, undoubtedly, more discontent and friction to-day than the promoters of the Act ever anticipated would be the case, and it is somewhat difficult to see how the discontent will be minimised in the future. Mr Scott, however, admitted that "the Act had to a considerable extent protected the honest and liberal-minded employer against his unscrupulous and dishonest competitor," and he might have added that the primary object of the Act, to protect employees against dishonest and unscrupulous employers, has to a large extent been effected. The speaker's contention, however, was that the boon had been purchased at,

too great a price. "I am fully persuaded in my own mind," he < remarked, "that the advantages of the Act, such ad we have at the present time, are more than outweighed by the many serious disadvantages, and that the workers, employers, and industries alike would have been better off to-day ha*! the Ant never been introduced." What Mr Scott seems to have overlooked is the principle of the Act. In quarrelling with the administration of the Act, he seems to infer that the principle is wrong This we cannot admit. Tht principle of the Act is fair-may, and because the administration of the Act may be wrong it is surely striving after injustice, and somewhat abturd, to suggest that it should be done away with and replaced by nothing—in other woids, to end instead of amend the Act. The most serious of Mr Scott's contentions were that the Act had neither fostered trade, nor improved the efficiency of the workers. If these statements be true, it must be admitted that the Act has failed in two important respects, and, possibly, the chief cause of the trouble lies in the administration, which has, practically, never introduced a minimum wage, but has fixed standard wages, which are really maximum so far as the vast majority of employees are concerned. To foster trade and to develop efficient methods there should beyond question be an incentive to employees to earn more than the standard, or minimum wage. The minimum wage, ot course, should not be below that of a fair living wage, and herein the great difficulty is encountered, because, speaking generally, the present minimum wage is not, if at all, higher than it ought to be. That a standard wage should be a maximum wage is a matter to be deplored by both employers and employees; yet, in the present condition of affairs, it is not clear how the position can be altered by tinkering the Arbitration Act. The solution of the problem, probably, may be found in accomplishing the herculean task of remodelling the whole of our system of taxation.