The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 16 1909. THE BARRIER TROUBLE.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 457, 16 March 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 16 1909. THE BARRIER TROUBLE.

The award of Me.'Justice Hiqqins in the Barrier mining dispute deserves the careful attention of all who take any interest in tho economic aspect of industrial legislation. The problem before Me. Justice Hiqqins was not materially different from tho problems set to'our own Arbitration Court, but it had this special difficulty, that the struggle over the rate of wages was almost a conflict' upon tho right of the men to ask for such wages as the industry could just not afford to pay. Prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, the Judgo asked the disputants whether they would accept the award, but, although both sides gave something like an undertaking to carry on under the award, nothing was said which would prevent the strikers from remaining on strike if they wished or the company from closing down its works. The Judge made up, his mind early in the hearing of the case that he would allow no consideration to govern him in making his award save the rule that a competent workman should not receive less from his toil than would support him in a civilised set of conditions. He was not blind, however, to the results which an award framed on this rule might achieve. He "fully recognised the terrible nature of tho catastrophe that would be caused if the Proprietary Company stopped working." At the present moment there is grave anxiety lest the Company may find it impossible to continue operation!.

It is to be hoped that the Judge, in making his award, has allowed himself the liberty of discussing the principles of "the living wage." There is clearly little advantago in decreeing as a minimum wage a figure which will make the affected industry unable to pay any wages at all. Some people will say, of course, that that industry is a tumour in the social body which will not permit the payment of a "living wage." That it should be cut out. The extremist's reply to this line of reasoning is generally a prompt suggestion that the State should take over the industry concerned, and pay a "living wage." This suggestion was made recently in respect of one of the large industries in New Zealand. But it is quite clear that no more, in the way of wealth, can be taken out of an industry than is contained in that industry, and the high wages that the State would pay would be paid by the general taxpayer. All that we should get, in such a case, would be a certain burden of waste, the wealth-source remaining unchanged. Should the Proprietary mine remain idlo* the result will

be, not merely unemployment and distress, but an actual loss to the community of real wealth. It was a recognition of the desirableness of preventing this kind of waste that prompted the. provision in the Victorian law that the Court o£ Industrial Appeals may lower the I minimum wage fixed by a wages hoard w if it prejudices "the progressive mainlcnanco of or scope of employment in tlic trade or industry." The Barrier trouble illustrates very well the great danger of that kind of industrial legislation which makes wagesrates independent of economic conditions. In Great Britain they are wise enough to avoid that danger. A cable message which we printed yesterday reported that a Board of Conciliation has recommended a reduction of 5 per cent, in the wages of miners in England and North Wales. This is the latest of a series of similar reductions. Wages in the Scottish mines concerned were reduced, as a result of negotiations through the Conciliation Boards, by 3d. per day, Cd. per day, and 6d. per day, in April, June, and July respectively, making a total reduction of Is. 3d. per day or over 16 per cent. These reductions were necessitated by a falling of prices. In Australasia the law would have made these reductions impossible, with the result that thousands of miners would bo thrown out of work and the wealth of the nation appreciably reduced. In none of the industries in New Zealand is the employer's position so critical as the Proprietary Company's, but for years there has been a steady upward movement in wages, and in some instances, we have no doubt, the wages-rate is quite close to the point at which loss to the employer commences. The employee is entitled to a fair wage —in the long run it pays the employer to give full payment for labour received. But with the situation at Broken Hill before thoir eyes, New Zealand unionists will be able to understand the peril of asking for too much. You may, to be sure, decree that an employer shall not pay less a stated wage; no law can prevent him from giving up paying wages at all.