Government s Part In Industrial Relations

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31975, 30 April 1969, Page 1

Government s Part In Industrial Relations

To retain the benefits of competitive private enterprise, the temptation must be resisted to demand that the (government usurp the function of management in industrial relations, said the Minister of Labour (Mr Shand) in Christchurch last evening.

“Governments make ground rules for the guidance of industry but are most reluctant io intervene in direct negotiations, or attempt to lay down hard-and-fast rules as to what constitutes the correct wage for a particular jom,” he said. Addressing the Christchurch branch of the Economic Society, Mr Shand said: “I believe this to be at the basis of democracy, and just as true for New Zealand as for other countries." Although the trade-union movement in New Zealand

> lent theoretical support to , socialism, particularly a State-enterprise socialism, it generally agreed with man- ■ agement that the prime re- , sponsibility for industrial re- , lations rested with industry and not with the GovernI ment. 1 “It seems rather odd that 1 it is the political far Right which always presses for more direct Government interven- • tion in industrial relations," ■ Mr Shand said. 1 Some people were so horri- ’ Red by the waste which • occurred through industrial ' stoppages that they would • designate all strikes as serious offences against society. “They i would like to assume that Lthe Government, through an

arbitrator, is the best body to settle every such conflict." said Mr Shand. Others would like Government action to outlaw strikes. “This demand comes very largely from people who are almost fanatically devoted to the concept of a privateenterprise society,” Mr Shand said. “They should pause to consider that if the Government is to assume the right to compel people to accept a particular employment, under conditions which the Government lays down, they are taking a long step towards the Socialist State. I think it is near the police State ’’ Mr Shand said he did not for a moment deny that a great many disputes were unnecessary—in any event, those who stopped work often lost more in wages than they gained by striking—and often the majority of strikers would prefer that some all-wise authority step in and order them back to work and to arbitrate. “I am very reluctant about arbitration. It is a confession iof failure of conciliation.” said Mr Shand. : Arbitration, of course, was i better than a stand-up fight, ' but if it was accepted too readily one party would soon realise that arbitration was essentially a compromise view, and by continually raising an issue would tend Ito get a little from it. But the crucial point, or sheet anchor, of industrial relations today was that management and trade unions had many interests in common—increased productivity and prosperity, for instance —which far exceeded matters jabout which they commonly ' came into dispute. But speaking on militant trade unionism. Mr Shand I said: “We may, in the future, (have to revise our ideas on | the freedom of individuals to take economic action ... I am considering the development of militancy as now appearing among the whitei collar workers." TEACHERS’ STRIKE Mr Shand mentioned a strike by Canadian schoolteachers which had lasted a whole term—“and not only schoolteachers. We now see strikes by nurses, and doctors.”

The chairman (Mr W. Rosenberg): And policemen! Mr Shand: Well, under de Gaulle. But before contemplating such drastic departure from the rules and attitudes which society had developed in the evolving process of democracy, the possibilities should be explored of fostering within the ranks of industry and organisations a ! sense of responsibility which would make such action unnecessary. Mr Shand said.