MR MILLAR'S INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13131, 2 June 1908, Page 8

MR MILLAR'S INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

TO THE EH-TOF. of ''tiie press."

Sir, —My credentials are in " your ' hands. From tilde yon will doubtless 'admit that'l speak with some know- ' ledge of the matter in hand. Let jme say straightaway that the views expressed by Mr Thorn in last Saturday's "Press" are not these of tho '- majority of tho workers. Still less ! does tho spirit in which they are writI ten give any indication of the real attitude of the workers generally. Many of us believe that the constitution of Mr Millar's proposed Industrial

! Councils is a decided improvement on the constitution of tho present Coni filiation Board. Under present condi- ) tions conciliation is a misnomer, for : how can, say, the farmer employers be ■ conciliated when they find themselves : unwillingly appearing before a Board ;to oppose, not their own "hands" but a paid agitator, totally unacquainted with tho necessities of farm life. Indeed, recent developments iii the farm labourers' dispute prove tho wisdom of Mr Millar's proposed reform. They are a weighty argument t.i-t no l--.~-o - should bo lost in amending the law iin tho direction indicated. Tho : ing of such a Eill would mean the : passing of James Thorn, but we might i live to get over that. Years ago 1 assisted at the formation of several Unions, at which time only members of their own trade wero elected to tho executive, and we never failed to impress on them tho advisability of leaving tho conduct of their business* in the hands- of bona fide workers at their industry. This is exactly tho principle on which MiMillar would found his councils—a principle that appeals at onco alike to experienced Unionists and employers. In this highly educated country ot ours it is absurd to think of any single body of men unable to look after their own interests. When the real neces-

sity arises tho real man will also arise out of their own ranks. Indeed, in several instances where failure has followed on agitation, ono could readily trace the cause thereof to t_e employment of a professional agitator. There is another point wo must not lose sight of—Mr Millar is a responsible Minister of the Crown, who cannot legislate for one class only—"tho common, or garden variety ot agitator." as Mr Thorn describes himself, perhaps with more truth than elegance. A responsible Minister must legislate as ho believes will be for tho good of the country, as a whole, and this only so far as public opinion will allow him to go. The proposed legislation is certainly fair to the workers, and if we havo at last, in tho Industrial Councils, got hold of working machinery approved of by employers (as Mr G. T. Booth aesirrcs us) then we are assuredly approaching "a consummatidn devoutly to ,bo wished."—Yours, etc., ICONOCLAST. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS." Sir, —The interests of Capital and Labour are not identical: under the present social system they aro in aibsolute conflict. The only "agreement" passible is a truce or a compromise. If the interests are identical, why not let Labour formulate its demands and Capital grant all thoso demands? L*a-

bom*, of course, formulates d-majiid3 in its own interests, and theso interests you say are identical with the interests of Capital: then why confuse tho issue by hearing the evidence of Capital at all? If Labour wants a wa-ge, which means that a 25 per cent, dividend in any industry is cut down to a o per cent, dividend, why should not Capital grant thes© wages if, as you allege, the interests are identical? Of cou-ree you know as well as 1 dk> that the interests of Labour and Capital aro never identical except in co-operative or Socialistic enterprises. In tli© individualistic enterprises of modiern commerce they are nothing of tho kind. For instance, th© Typographical Association demanded a certain wogo •recently for certain classes of labour. You, along with other capitalistic newspaper proprietories, who talk about th© interests of Capital and Labour being identical, refused to allow those wages, and th© case .went to tlio Arbitration Court. Why should it havo to go to the Court if the workers' interests were

identical with tho employers' interests? Why was it not a siircpio case of "Ask and ye shell receive?" To put th© matter briefly: Capital is tli© buyer and- Laibonir is the seller; Caipital wants to buy in tbe cheapest marked; and Laibour wants.to sell in the dearest market; and to say that the interests of such people are identic©] is albsolutely absurd. Everybody admits, of course, that in prosperous times Laibour is bettor off than in tilull times: that is not because of the prosperity of Capital or tho reverse, it is simply becauso of the greater or lesser demand for Labour. Similarly it may be no benefit at o'll to Labour to increase production: that, in many instances, means that the demand for Labour becomes les_ and less, and thus the worker may be thrown out of employment. And so one might go on quoting instance after instance to show that the interests ot Capital and Labour are not identical, as is repeatedly alleged by capitalistic institutions who desire to throw dust in tho oyes of tho workers. These interests, as I have said, are in direct and l absoluto conflict, and the cry of "Peace, peace!" is simply a futile waste of breath, for there is no peace, and cannot be any peace until labour gets the full social value of what it produces.—Yours, etc., JAMES THORN.

instance to show that the interests ot Capital and Labour are not identical, as is repeatedly alleged by capitalistic institutions who desire to throw dust in the oyes of tho workers. These interests, as I have said, are in direct and l absoluto conflict, and the cry of "Peace, peace!" is simply a futile waste of breath, for there is no peace, and cannot be any peace until labour gets the full (social value of what it produces.—Yours, etc., JAMES THORN.