A LABOUR PROPHET.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13105, 2 May 1908, Page 8

A LABOUR PROPHET.

Mr Ramsay Macdonald is one of tie few labour leadens vrisrtang New Zeeland who realised tiho tome posittkxa of the Arbitration Act, and if ho -were there to-day he -would be able to cbaxnt tliat his ©pinion regarding its effect 'and its future *rae ampJy justified. Wiiat

that opinion m he explains in some detail in aai article in. tihe latest number of the "Contemporary" on "Arbitration "Gonirte and Wages Boards in Aus"tralia/' , Wβ may yet be interested in wages boards in New Zealand, but, for the present, oar concern lies -niih the Arhi<fcration Court and the Act it administers. Mr Maodomald poinie out that the regulation by law of wages and hours of labour (has been, carried on here "behind a protection wail high " enough to fair amount of " latitude for a. manap-ulartdon of nomi- " nai -wages, and to enable the exchange " of ail oammodities —including that of " labour poweri—to be carried on a* "hijsh namknal standards." "Glood "times" for a oansiderablo period enabled this to be doiu> without pressing very hardly upon employers, and, as vo have often said, and as Air Maodonald recognises, the real test of the system -was postponed until bad timee camo, or uratil a stago was reached ■which repreeeivteH the limit to whioh the artificial raiercng of wages oould go. " The New Zealaaid. eyetem of exbhango " has now," assert* the English Labour leader, "oome to th© margin beyond " ■whioh the -mtanj-pulaftion, of nominal " price cannot be carried to any ex"*enfc. The arbitration law is breafc"ing down,,' wae a comimon remark " iruado to mc by eotdve ■brede utnion'•ists. 'Why?' I asked. 'Because "the court is going against Uβ, , .was " the reply." Since Mr Macdonald penned those words we hare Been wliaifc hiappems -when the Count "goes againsb" a undon. iMr MacdonaJd saiw tlhat the whole Bvsfcem was "ortdfioial and itiee- " cure," that it was unrfair, beoalisothe awards Of the Court could be omiorced againsb employers to their disadviaaij»tage, but not againsb emiployece; and ho asserted "that the State had "really "no power to enforce its arbitration " laiw," beoauee it conM not take pttnitiv© laotion. against masses of men. In sfcort, he fotrnd the eystem bad, b&canse it was unsound in policy. ITho effect of the multitude of awards hab undoubtedly ibeen to α-aaee wagce, but that rise hae been , lacoomipanded by a general iucreeeo of prices all round, and it is extremely doubtful whether, in the mass* the workers havo profijfced by aJI they Ihavo olaimed and eeeured. We have croßen from a s.vHtem of low exchange ito one of bigjh exchange, bmt tho ratio between the price for which the workers in each dndusfay sell their labour, and the /r/rice whddh they hare to pay for the prodiiote of "Che labour of tbedr fellow-workers, xemaij» to a very great extent unciuumged. Some lose hue fallen on the empJoyere of labour, but this would' liave been barnto wbtth oompaTaAii'T© cteerfnlnese if at had represented itlhe pric© paid (for gemiano induebrial peace. But that happy condition hae not, unfortunately, been within eighi, ever since the A.ribiibration Act, through, being put to a use for which, it was never intended, bedame tihe aneams of fostering a mever-endainig ©erjes of artifUwailly fomenited "disputbes." To make matter* worse, w© hare the epectaole oi, "the Goverrwnemfc deiayimg, for what reason one can onJy coii'jeotTiT©, -to enforce the law to such an extent as Kes in its ipower. What wonder tlhen. that the Leader of the Opposition,; Bβ he told out Wellrngbon- repreaen'tatrTO, found on his recent -travels thtrough the Dominion', the general opinion <that the Arbitration. Adt has broken down?