The Press. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1902. EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11356, 20 August 1902, Page 6

The Press. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1902. EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN.

In his address delivered as President of the Employers' Association yesterday, Mr. G. T. Booth has supplied material for thought, and doubtless what he says will be subjected to a good deal of criticism from the labour point of View. We ere convinced, however, that although he may take a rather too pessimistic outtook in some directions, his remarks are deserving of the most careful consideration, not only by employers and workmen, but also by all who take an interest in our labour legislation. Mr. Booth, we gather > has not much confidence in the Arbitration Court being able ultimately to adjust satisfactorily the delicate retationships between capital and labour. Wages and other conditions of labour, like profits, he tells vs 1 , are dst&rmifled by the interplay of forces and conditions entirely beyond the power of any association either of workmen or of employers, or of any Court of Arbitration, to control. We our* selves should, not go quite so far as this. The experience of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, so far as it has gone, has proved, wo thank t that the Court, so long as it is composed of capable and fair-minded men, can apportion wages and conditions of taboo? With some approach to equity, having iegard to the conditions existing at the time of framing the award. But there are two or three possible sources of danger which, if not guarded against, may yet 'lead either to th© breakdown of the system, or to serious injury to the industrial progress j of this colony. Chief of these we 'place the apparent unwillingness of the workmen to accept the awards when these I are not to their liking. Already, in a time of prosperity, when the general result of applications to the Court has been to improve the conditions of the workers, we have had repeated instances not only of sullen discontent among the latter, but of open abuse directed against the Court. What will happen when a period of depression sets in, and the Court has to order a reduction of wages all along the line? That time will assuredly come, following the usual cycle of ebb and flow in the industrial and commercial world, and it is then that the Act will be subjected to its greatest breaking strain. Since it came into operation the employers have been on their trial. They have accepted its decisions loyally, and we. do not recollect a single case in which they have publicly attacked the Court, even when its decisions have gone most, strongly against what they conceived to be their rights or their interests. The trial of the workmen has yet to come, and it will depend upon their conduct in the time of stress and depression as to whether our labour legislation will stand or whether it will be swept

away in favour of some other expedient for settling tins great social problem. But there, ia !another, danger. «wtiich threatens not 'only <mr labour legisbtioa, but also, what is of greater importaaoe, Our industrial and commercial welfare* It la the fact, that, ooncorwotly with the attempt to obtain higher wages and shorter hoars, there i» a tendency on the part of the "new tJnionisrn *' to discourage wh*t Mr Prostick called "diligence, energy and efficiency." Mr Booth, in his speech, showed that where rwtmfd and mechanical efficiency of production has reached the highest pitch, there the workmen's wages are highest. That is not only a matter of experience, but it is simply the natural working of a natural law! Wages can he paid only if they are earned, and the more efficient the workmen's labour the greater the return to be divided among them. On the other, if the policy js persisted in of trying to raise wages artificially, without giving an adequate return in the sliape of labour, the result can only be disaster not long deferred. The fact ought never to be lost sight of that we in this colony are not a self-contained community, but that we have to compete against foreign manufacturers. It is only by efficiency that <wo can hope, to hold our own. Already in many lines there is a tendency on the part of employers who do both a manufacturing and an importing business, to curtail the former, and expand the latter, as being more profitable and involving less uncertainty and anxiety*. If labour becomes excessive in its demands, and particularly if it preaches and .practises the pernicious fallacy of "ca' canny," this tendtacy will rapidly increase, and the result will be large additions to the ranks of this unemployed.

The key of the position, it will be seen, 13 largely in the hands of the workers themselves. Without their intelligent and earnest co-operation no solution of the problem is possible. So far as the employers are concerned, Mr Booth suggests the possible adoption of the profit-sharing, or the bonus system. (Either of ■ these might tend- to increase efficiency, but we cannot shut our eyes to the (fact that since Parliament has decreed in effect that wages shall be fixed by law, employers have shown a decided disinclinatiota to give workers anything, either in the shape of a bonus or a share in the profits, beyond what the law allows. The next suggestion made by Mr Booth will probably cause a good deal of discussion. To put the matter plainly, he advocates meeting the new conditions by a system of "trusts" among the employers. The bare suggestion will, perhaps, -cause alarm, and it may be even resentment in the public mind. B- if labour has a right to form combinations to traise wages—which are in reality labour trusts—employers have the same right to form combinations among to meet the conditions under •which tiiey are forced to work. And if those combinations keep strictly within the lines laid down by Mr Booth, they should be beneficial to the consumer, instead of the reverse. A combination to create a monopoly, and raise prices unduly by that means would be against the public interest, and should be resisted. A combination strictly for the purpose of economy of production and management, ia not only legitimate but laudable. Mr Booth's idea is that where there are at present Bay six factories in New Zealand, all working against each other, with much waste of energy and capital, they should combine. They would thus be able to buy their raw. materials on better terms, they | could lessen the cost of management, since six factories could be directed by one head, j and above all they would be able to lessen I the heavy expenses connected with selling their goods under the present system. The cost of advertising, of travellers, etc., could be immensely curtailed, and, what is by no means least important, there ought to be a reduction in bad debts. Such a com* bination, able to effect economies of this kind, oUght to be able not only to pay the increased wages demanded—always provided the workers accepted the doctrine of efficiency—but also to sell its goods at reasonable prices. It would still be faced by the competition of imported goods, so that it is difficult to see how it could constitute

a monopoly with power to raise prices against the public to aa undue level. Its conduct in that respect, however, would be jealously watched, and very rightly so. Trade competition is so keen in a small country like this that there is sure to be some difficulty in getting rival manufacturers to pull together so completely as Mr Booth's proposal demands. There iseJio doubt, however, that our present social and economic conditions point very strongly to the formation of trusts as the natural means of defence open to the employer, and we shall yet hear more of the proposal.