The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 6, 1908. LABOUR'S MANIFESTO.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 242, 6 July 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 6, 1908. LABOUR'S MANIFESTO.

, The manifesto issued by tho Wellington Trades and Labour Council in reply to Dk. Findlay's address on the Arbitration Act is interesting'as disclosing in detail (•he views of.local labour leadors on the question of the hour. It is quite evident that the-compilers of the manifesto have been 'fully impressed with tho im-

portance of their task, and while they have not' risen ' superior to the use of familiar: catch-cries rind high-sounding but unsatisfying generalities they have leffc.no rooni for doubt as to their vievs upon some points of very material importance. ' Dr.-. FiudCay's.' facts' arid figures have quite failed to convince the Trades Council that the Arbitration Ait has been of any real benefit to the worker;

but the Council nevertheless desires to • preserve'the Act provided that it is amended to suit the views of Labour. What will suit-, tho views of Labour is made quite clear in the manifesto. It is admitted that certain provisions of tho Act are advantageous to tho Trades Unions, and these provisions, it is claimed, should be retained and strengthened, while other provisions which existed •in the original Act, but which were repealed, should be reinstated. For instance, the manifesto sets out that:

Despito the studied defianco of tho employers and tho ridicule of tho Press, their (tho Conciliation Board's) recommendations liavo given satisfaction to tho workers. The subsequent conclusions of the Court havo always resulted in tho "whittling down"..of. those recommendations in favour of tho employers. Full well havo the employers realised this, henco'their, reliance on the Court. Tho Board has gone further. On tho average its decisions have been more in favour of the workers than even the mutual agreements arrivod at botweon ; tho . workers and the employers.

It is not surprising in these circumstances that lae Trades Council "• earnestly advocates the extension of ■ the powers of tho Board" and urges the passing of ''suoh legislation as will ensure finality tu the 'decisions of the Conciliation Board." Then again as to the departure .from the original Act, it is pointed out that the amendment of the Act in 1903 did away with the right to strike. Prior to that time, if a Union was dissatisfied with an award it could indicate' its rosentmcnt by striking. The law, in fact, placcd in the hands of the Unionists a double-barrelled instead of singlebarrelled weapon. If the first barrel, the Arbitration Court, failed to have effect on the employers aimed at, tho Union still had in reserve the second barrel, the strike. Apparently the moral effect of the second barrel was regarded by the Unions as a'powerful influenco on the Court as well as on the' employer, as the manifesto avers that tho Court at that time took into consideration when framing an award that "the workers could place it (the award) on one side and resort to other measures." ■ Indeed, it is plainly, stated that since that moral influence has been removed the Court has back-slidden and decided disputes " not on grounds of equity, but in accordance with its own inclinations." To this is attributed tho strikes which have since taken place. In other words, we have tho paradox that the removal of the right to strike has produced the strikes which havo disturbed the industrial peace of tho 'Dominion during tho past two years. So much for tho desires of the .Trades Council respecting the directions in which it , favours the Arbitration Act. Thoso things favourable to Labour should be retained; those which have proved of advantage to tho omployors should be made o! less advantage. Labour, as represented by the Trades Council, apparently js guifco cQiitent bo. long as it can act un^

the principle of " heads I win, tails you lose." The one redeeming feature of its unreasonableness is the amusing candour with which it discloses its aspirations. Ir. putting forward its views concerning the Act, the Council is careful to make it perfectly clear that it regards the Act enly as an expedient. That " as.a final means of securing to the workers a fair shn.ro of the products of their labour it (the Act) is absolutely of no avail." The " final means " which alone can accomplish the desires of Labour are stated to be giiidnal socialisation of all industries, and the nationalisation of the land. There we have disclosed the final aspirat'on of organised labour as represented bv the Trades and Labour Council. It

desires the abolition of tho competitive wage system,' and as present political parties stand pledged to that system it urges Labour to form a political party of its own in order to bring about a co-operative commonwealth. During the past thirteen years the average rate of wages in tho. Dominion has, according'to the figures of the manifesto, increased by nearly 25 per cent. During the same period the hours of laboiu 1 in the great majority of trades have been reduced, and the conditions of employment generally improved. Yet we find the unrest in the ranks of tho labour leaders greater to-day than it has been at any period during the past decade. It is a striking commentary on the futility (i the efforts of the Government to placate Labour. ' The sweeping terms of the manifesto may possibly have the effect of stiffening the bacld of Ministers when they muster courage to face Parliament with their Arbitration Act amendments.