Growing unrest noted

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32862, 10 March 1972, Page 3

Growing unrest noted

The public was growing more irritated with an economic system which produced neither an acceptable distribution of incomes nor industrial peace the director of Victoria University of Wellington industrial relations centre (Professor F. J. L. Young) told the National Development Conference yesterday.

Professor Young said some i form of incomes policy apipeared to be necessary, and

he believed New Zealand possessed both the knowledge and the capacity to achieve such a policy—“provided we have the confidence.”

The alternatives, he said, in their extreme forms were either a 19th century “free-for-all” or a command economy in which all prices and incomes were dictated centrally and in which a considerable direction of labour was required. “NOT ENCOURAGING”

The experience of other countries in trying to formulate income policies was not encouraging, Professor Young said. “In the long run, neither side of the bargaining table seems prepared to accept over-all regulation (even guidelines) on the distribution of incomes.

“It is evident, of course, that some people would be very happy to have the Government regulate the other party’s income—but never their own.”

Overseas experience raised an important question, he said. “Does the hidden cost of a formal incomes policy—industrial and social tension and lack of incentives—offset any potential gain? With the Stabilisation of Remuneration Act running out very soon this matter needs careful consideration.”

Professor Young said he was sceptical about the belief that it was possible to legislate for good industrial relations. YARDSTICKS “Some yardsticks must be provided in terms of criminal behaviour and public safety, but these are issues which rarely feature in industrial relations. The quality of the present debate on industrial relations legislation could be greatly improved if that fact were accepted and another distinction made.” This distinction was that “there is -a significant difference between legislation attempting to control conflict as it occurs and legislation that seeks to remove causes of conflict.” Some overseas observers had'noted rising levels of industrial unrest going hand in hand with an increasing degree of statutory control. Professor Young surveyed forces which work to create instability, and suggested that the way to overcome them was a combination of the standard fiscal measures to promote or dampen de-

mand with a “fine-tuning” labour market policy to handle such matters as training, retraining and redeployment. MORE LIAISON He placed considerable emphasis on the need to develop genuine incentive schemes to boost productivity, and he pointed to present deficiencies. “The national employment service,” he said, “requires upgrading in terms of placement activity, liaison with employers, unions and workers as well as communication with the public,”

After study of Professor Young’s paper, the principal impression is of a butterfly approach to what some observers see a$ an impending disaster in industrial relations, says the industrial reporter of “The Press.” The strengthening of the Federation of Labour referred to by Professor Young has been negligible and, in fact, the F.O.L. is not equipped to represent the workers adequately in the present discussions of the proposed Industrial Relations Bill. TIME PAST? Professor Young touches on the danger of over-control in industrial legislation, but does not associate it with the employers’ present proposals, even though he must surely be aware of them.

His aim presumably was to provoke discussion on a wide range of topics, but it might well be argued that the time has come for a much more specific and positive approach to the industrial issues facing New Zealand.