The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1908. A CASE FOR CAUTION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 231, 23 June 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1908. A CASE FOR CAUTION.

Taking heart\rrom the temporary blowing over of the '\Blackball storm, some of our Ministerialist frifinda are growing almost pugnacious. They are beginning to exclaim against that' desiro to harass and embarrass tho Government which they suspeot in the independent newspapers, which have been so inconsiderato of the privileges of Governments as to say what nearly everybody has been thinking about the Arbitration Act. It is therefore with ■a pleasant consciousness that we shall offend nobody, and infringe none of the unwritten laws concerning the sanctity of Ministers, that wo advocate a line of action, or rather a lino of inaction, with respect to the now wage system proposed by Dr. Findlay that will simultaneously protect the GoVernment from trouble and deprive ourselves of the" mournful pleasure of a future protest. To some extent Dn. Findlay has himself forestalled tho necessity for being' urgent in protest-1 ing against the prompt adoption of the

" oxertion wage " system as a part of our industrial arbitration law. He has explained, with ' a good deal of emphasis, that the Government is not '' committed " to the new proposals. The public will bo grateful for this caution, even while they may suspect that it is to political expediency and Labour's shprtness of temper, 'fatJior "tban to statesmanlike

prudericer that its thanks arc due. it would be premature to assign 1)r. Findlay's disclaimer of any intention to nail (lags to masts, or do anything decisive and instantaneous, .to a waning of his passion for experiment. Wo are far from being out of that wood yet; the Government has not yet abandoned the

political ideas that no doubt prevailed at tho Lyctirgus House Academy, which Mr. Bottles so muOh admired. " Original maiij Silvorpump! " said Mr. Bottles; fine mind! fine system! None of your antiquated rubbish—all practical work — latest discoveries in science—mind constantly kept excited—lots of interesting experiments—lights of all colours—fizz! fizz! bang I bang! That's what i call forming a man."

Official Labour has not yet spoken upon the " gain-sharing " system as expounded by tho Attorney-General, but we aH know what it will say. While wo are awaiting its blast of protest against such an interference with " tho equal rights of man " as the payment of workers according to their ability, the opinions of various men prominent in industry, which we printed on Saturday, are worthy of study. Me. Pryor, whose observations are plainly the putcome of much thought upon the subject, can hardly bo suspected of hostility to a system which, if it really meant payment for work dohe, would bo welcomed all • employers. His chief objection arises from a reasonable fear that the " needs wage " will bo the present " minimum wage," which has really become tho "efficiency wage." In that case, while the export hands will receive higher pay, the inexpert hands, who are below the average, will still receive more than they are worth. The " needs wage/' moreover, must be based upon the needs of a married worker, and the Court will thorcfore be faced with the alternative of doing injustice to tho employer or injustice to married employees. lii any event, it will be extremely difficult to fix the " needs wage" in any largo industry. Mr. Pryor quoted Judge Hood's opinion that " if the test was meant to be a wage that would cnablo a man to live in the mode that ought to be adopted by the average in his class, all he could say was that such might be a most desirable object, but that it was so vague as to be incapable "of ascertainment." Mr. Aitken was not far wrong when he urged that "it would' bo ncccssary to make about' twenty grades " to meet the wide variations of the " needs " of different workers in one industry. How is the Court to mako workable awards, and how is tho employer to pick his way through tho maze, under a system founded in such confusion 1 It must not be supposed that we are arguing against tho possibility of securing some improved wage-fixing' system. We cite the objections that the Uoy'ernment must answer as so many decisive reasons against hurried experiment. There should be long consideration before our industrial legislation is further complicated by tho insertion of new and untested parts in the old machine.

it must always be kept in mind that there are'some trades in which the " exertionl" test cannot bo applied. As Mr. J. P. Luke pointed out, the system extolled by Dr. Findlay has succeeded only in large workshops in which the work is so highly specialised as to be easily scheduled. He would be a very sanguine person, and'' one very forgetful of tho mothods pursued by disputants before tlie Conciliation 1 Boards and the Court, who would say that tho Court would be able to discriminate between trades, and prescribe satisfactory "exertion " schedules, and yet live and thrive. There is, to say the least, a Strong -prima facie case for expectation .that only trouble will result from tho transplantation of a new wages system to our unsuitable soil simply because it does well under special conditions abroad. Tho new plant, to be sure, would have tho benefit of attention from a State watering-pot, and it will' be tortured and trained to admiration. But will it survivo, and so far-give up its habits as to bear in the hothouse the "fruit that it has never yet. borne excepting in the open air of -freedom ? , Dr. Findlay will probably have concluded by now that his alluring experiment must after all be gone about "very slowly, if at all. ■ If anything further wero required, it is supplied by Mr. Westbrook's strange discovery of " the incompetent employer." " We hear a lot about the incompetent worker," he told our interviewer, "but what about the incompetent employer ? " Dr. Findlay never thought of that, nor did we. Mr. Westbrook is entitled to the sole credit of this discovery. The raison d'etre of the employer, it now appears, is the supplying of means whereby Labour can make lots of money. What nobler aim can an employer have than existence for the sake of the workers, and to what finer en,ds can the work of the Legislature bo directed than the pursuit •and punishment -of those bad fellows, whose incompotcncc or whoso lack of capital—it is tho Bamo thing to Labour —is Buch that his existence as an employer is an 'affront to the right of Labour to walk right in to his shop and grow rich? The Government may rest assured that " the incompetent employer " is not a neat paradox invented by Mr. Westbrook in an inspired moment. In a few days, no doubt, wo shall hear all about him, and it will bo interesting to know what the AttorneyGeneral will say when he realises the full extent of what his scheme will bo cxpected to do. "