THE EMPLOYERS' SIDE OF THE CASE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13157, 2 July 1908, Page 8

THE EMPLOYERS' SIDE OF THE CASE.

"I think the employees have obtained all the benefits they possibly could under the Arbitration Act, and are now snapping their finders at it,"' remarked Mr F. W. Htabbs, president of the Employers' Association, to a "Press reporter, when approached for his views in regard to the Hon. J. A. Millar's utterances. "I do not think u-e present system of collecting fines imposed on entployees through their employers is feasible. This idea, I believe, has been in vogue, since the slaughtermen's strike, and I believe tho Labour Department is still collecting the fines. I am of opinion that compulsory arbitration can, no longer stand in the Dominion. The compulsory clauses of the Act havo lasted up till now, not because they are compulsory, but because the Act v's giving tlio woi'kers as much as, and perhaps moro than, they lioped they could obtain by direct negotiations with the employers. Tlie Act has further lieen the means of building up unionism, and as the result of this increased strength tho unions in many cases have thought themselves strong enough for a straightout fight with the employers. In these circumstances they are not likely to submit to any form of compulsory arbitration. The employers generally believe that the only Act which will bo of any use will bo one providing machinery for voluntary conciliation in cases of dispute. If Mr Millar's proposed industrial councils aro estabk'shed, the employees "will probably a'bidc by them until they can gain no further benefit from them, and then they will only laugh at them. What i*ie employers need is that there shall be no distinction made iv the eyes of'the law between thorn and the employees. At tho present time all the enforcements are against the employers, which is entirely opposed to the policy of British fair play, and the employers will accept it no longer." Mr Hobbs suggested that the only way of settling disputes would be by means of voluntary conciliation Board's appointed by each 'side to settle disputes on their merits, any agreement made to last, as long a.s it was acceptable to both parties. The chairman should bo some prominent Government official, which should be ready to act- immediately any dispute arose. In the course of his opening speech on behalf of the employers in the shearers' dispute at the " Arbitration Court- yesterday, Mr W. Scott (bocretary of the Otago Employers' Association) referred to the present agitation in connection with the Arbitration Act. "We are hearing a lot about the Arbitration Court- being a failure,'* be said, •'•and it is manifest that- many of tho workers don't think as much of tho Court as they once did. They don't want to go back on the Court as to conditions of labour—they want to hold on to them and then go on strike to get an increase of wages. But they cannot have both; if they go back on the Court in connection with wages, they will have to go back on it in connection with If the workers go against the Arbitration Court, then it will be a bad day for them: they have far more to gain by holding on to tbe Court than the employers. Take the slaughtermen's strike in this district. The slaughtermen came along at the psychological moment and held pistols at the heads of the employers, and demanded 25s per 100 in place of 20s. and they had the employers. But when bad times come, and there are two men applying for the same billet, will it be astonishing if the employers retaliate and offer 12s 6d per 100? To prevent that the Arbitration Court steps in and says: 'We are not going to allow the employees to be exploited and we will fix a fair, square and reasonable wage, and we will make the rate 20k.'- That was.'" Mr Scott <o;i----tinued, "to the advantage of the

worker. ..The repeal of the Act won't affect the employers to the same extent. The employers have not much to thank the Arbitration Court for. though it ha« c~Ttamly_ put them on a better footing, so tnat they know where they are. but the awards ot the Court have put up the cost of production, and there i<> no doubt that employers are not now earning the money that they did prior to the Act coming into operation."'