The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1910. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 777, 29 March 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1910. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

We have received from the Government of California a copy of the report upon labour conditions and labour legislation which has been furnished to Governor Gillett by Colonel Harris Weinstock, who passed through New Zealand about a year ago in the course of his tour round the world. Of the 157 pages of Colonel ■ Weinstock's volume, over fifty are devoted to Now Zealand, but there is nothing material in these that is new, nor are Colonel Weinstock's comments of much interest or value. For most of his information he has relied on Mr. Tregear' or some other Government official, and for his conclusions he is indebted to a most singular capacity for ignoring facts. His verdict is. upon the whole very favourable to the Arbitration Act,'and this although he leaves unrefuted many" of the more serious charges brought against it. The fact is that he was so deeply impressed by the comparative' freedom of New Zeaj land from_ sharp industrial warfare that he did not give adequate. attention to anything else. His replies to some of the points made against the Act are too entertaining to be left unquoted. , For example, when told that the Act checks the 'growth and variety of capital investments, he quotes a statement by Mr. Tregear that "private wealth in New ' rose '•' from £170,000,000 in 1896 to £304,654,000 in 1906"! As to the burden of taxation, "I think,""he 'says, "I; have shown conclusively by the figures furnished by. the Treasury Department of New 'Zealand that tho tax burdens have decreased rather than increased since the Act has been created" ! In, 1893 tho taxation per head was £3 lis. 3d.; in, 1908 it was £5.05. 4d. His conviction that the Act can really be enforced against a large .and dqtermined mass of strikers appears to spring, from his perusal of a ridiculous little' telegram of May 14, 1909, reporting the issue' of two orders of attachment of wages (£5 and £2 10s.) in respect of two of the slaughfermon ongaged in the strike of 1907!

The opinions .on State regulation of industry which Colonel Weinstock gathered in the European countries, which he investigated, however, are of interest and importance. In every country which ho traversed the idea of compulsory arbitration as, it is understood in New Zealand—i.e., compulsion to arbitrate, and a permanent compulsion to, abide by the arbitrators' decisions—is almost universally condemned,, not only by the workers and the.employers, but also by individual ,statesraon of the highest .eminence. New Zealand may find profit in giving a little attention to what may fairly be called the testimony of the rest of the world. I In Italy there' is ■ certainly a small body of opinion in favour of compulsory arbitration", but the amount of respect, due to this body may be' calculated from/the fact .that the deputy who gives it' expression has a Bill which; "proposes to penalise ! manufacturers who refuse to obey the award of the -Arbitration -Board by closing their establishments, but ho penalties are > proposed for the workers, who offer no security." The Director of the Labour Bureau, Professor Montemartini, "is opposed to the.principle of compulsory ■arbitration, as ho considers it wrong in principle and impracticable, except perhaps in those- few; industries which are.Government monopolies and in which it is possible to. know the exact cost of production, and which have nothing to fear from foreign competition." The Prime Minister, Signor Giohtti, has expressed himself against compulsory arbitration, and is even opposed to the incorporation o£ trade unions. ■In Austria, "of the many who were invited to express an opinion as to the wisdom and practicability of compulsory arbitration, only three expressed favourable opinions." In Gormany the State refrains from exercising coercion, but it is a strong believer in voluntary conciliation. "In Germany, as in Austria, employers and employees, as a rule, are opposed to compulsory arbitration." One of the reasons given by Herr Delbruck for the Government's distaste for compulsory'measures will appeal very strongly to the New Zealand public. The State he said, "fears that it might find itself unable to enforce its decisions,! and that a failure to do so would bring the Administration into contempt."_ "Nearly everyone '-interviewed' in Belgium seemed opposed to compulsory arbitration as a strike remedy." "Arbitration, voluntary or compulsory, has comparatively few advocates ■ among .French employers or employees." In Great Britain Colonel Weinstock had what to a New. Zealandcr would be a shockingly amusing experience. "I found," he says, "but one labour authority in my British investigations who favoured compulsory arbitration : tho Honourable Mr. Pember Beeves, High Commissioner for New Zealand." Ho adds:

"T found that Mr. Reaves stands practioally alone in thi9_ opinion. All the other labour authorities that I was' enabled to meet while in England gave it as, their unqualified opinion that no compulsory arbitration law could be framedthat would compol men to go to work when they did not want to work, and that a compulsory arbitration law was of no practical value if labour, as well as capital, could not be compelled.-to abido. by the court decisions." And amongst tho authorities interviewed by Colonel Weinstock were Dr. Skadwell, Mb. John Burns, Mr. D. J. Shackletonj Mr. Winston Churchill, Mr. Robert Donald, and many others. Mr. John Burns favours voluntary arbitration. ._ It is very interesting to note that the reasons with which nearly everybody in Europe and England supported their opposition to compul. sory arbitration with a subsequent compulsion to obedience to decisions are much the same as are still urged by New Zealand critics of the Act. In some countries, to be sure, the workers fear that an 'Arbitration Court would be in sympathy with the capitalists. Generally, however, the central objection of the workers is their unwillingness to part with the right to strike. Tho employers arc opposed to the State regulation of industry on _ many obvious 'grounds. In Austria they are astute enough to suspect that "the State officials arc likely to be in sympathy with labour, and are, likely to' use their influcuw to get couca-iaious

in favour of labour, in order to least inconvenience themselves and jn the interests of industrial peace." We have seen in New Zealand enough to be able to assure the Austrian employers that their suspicion is wellfounded. As a result of his. inquiries, Colonel Weinstock has recommended the passage of an Act on the Canadian model—providing that no lockout or strike may take place until after a Board has published a report on the case in dispute. Wo alluded the other day to the great success of the Canadian Act, which, by the way, is to he copied in France. In Germany there is- a great system of courts of conciliation, and Herr Gostav Melisch, Chief Secretary of the Industrial Court of Berlin, told Colonel Weinstock that 70 per cent, of the disputes are submitted to tho court, and as a rule the decisions rendered are accepted, alunder the law there is no obligation upon the disputants to do so. In Great Britain, where strikes havo steadily decreased—the number of working days lost in a year havo in 10 years declined by over 79per cent—the Board of Trade is having wonderful success as a mediator. In 1907. eighty-nine Boards of Conciliation took action. The number of cases considered was • 1545, of which 668 were settled without stoppage of work. In 778 cases the disputes were withdrawn or settled independently. Only seven cases involved a stoppage of work. The two main conclusions that every careful student will arrive at after reading this report are, first, that the weight of authority is all against compulsory arbitration of the New Zealand sort, and, second, that it is a complete fallacy that the fundamental qualities of labour and capital, as represented in the tradesunionist and tlw employer, are quite unlike the qualities of labour and capital in other countries. To conclude from New Zealand's survival of the Arbitration Act that that Act is based on the granite rock of wisdom is not more foolish than to conclude from New Zealand's experience that Great Britain could flourish if her national foreign debt were £3,000,000,000 (£7O a head) and .6,500,000 persons (ono in seven) were directly dependent' on tho State.