Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1910. RESTRICTION OF OUTPUT.

A good deal of oomment has been called forth in the South by a letter in tlie otago Daily Times, in which an employer declares that "there, is a growing tendency on the part of the workers throughout the Dominion to restrict the output of the various industries in which they may be employed." It is "a wellknown; fact," he adds, "that they rarely give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay." Although it has not been put forward in such sweeping terms before, the complaint ,of the Dunedin employer is not a new oriej, nor has the charge he . brings against the organised workers lacked the endorsement of responsible people in New Zealand and visitors from abroad! who have studied our industrial conditions.. It is of course extremely difficult to obtain exact data, although -we have no doubt , that a Koyal Commission of the right kind would be able to settle the question in one way or another. As was to have been expected, there -have already been some indignant denials of the charge that the workers -limit their output, or, what is the same thing, make no atr tempt to put forth their best efforts. One Labour secretary has stated that he -knows of no case in which a trades-union has advised its members to "go slow," but this - hardly touches the matter. ;An order from the union is not necessary to persuade a workman who believes 'that his employer is his antagonist to give as little as possible. for his wage. The compulsion upon the employer to pay second-rate workmen more than they are -worth'leaves the employer without means to pay higher wages'to his high-grade men. All,' men are not of equal skill.' One man may be capable of doing half as much work again as his fellow, but' work ■ as' ho may. he can_ only draw the same wages!. What incentive' is : ihere. for hira to make, 'full' use of his capacity 1 - He will: thoroughly; earn his wages, no doubt, but a proportion of his productive ability remains idle. The extra wages that the good workman does not get are thus paid to his inferior companion, and since neither of them does the work for which this margin of wages is paid the employer' receives no; return. ~ No doubt it is to the interest of the employer that his men should all do their very best, but it is still more to the interests of the nation, of which the employers and men are the units, that labour and capital should be as efficient as possible. If* the employers were at liberty to pay men what they earned, they would before long be paying in the aggregate a vastly greater total' of wages than they are paying now, for their output would enormously increase, and, there would be so much more out of which La-b.our would , got its share. Unfortunately, every proposal ■' for the special recompense, of special exertion is fiercely opposed ) by most of the labour organisations, and will be •so opposed so long as the workers allow their councils to be dominated by the Socialistic cultivators -of industrial discontent. We very much doubt whether there is a competent, worker who is not at heart firm in his belief-in the fairness of the principle of-payment by results. He is led to believe, however, that a "bonus" system or a system of "exertion wages" would bo the thin end of a wedge for the shattering of "the' solidarity of labour." The men who make this appeal to the workers' sense of loyalty to their class—a 14 loyalty that can be wholly an admirable, thing—know well enough that such a system ofpayment by results would be the thin end of the wedge that would shatter the system necessary to the agitator's prosperity. For it would remove the discontent of the employers, and by enlarging production and profits,- would eliminate much of the amongst the workers also. In 1 his recent book, Colonel Weinstook remarked on the falling-off in the New Zealand workers' efficiency. He refused to ascribe this phenomenon to the working of the Arbitration. Act, preferring to attribute it to. the preachments of Socialists. This is inparfc quite true, but it is the 'levelling down" produced by the Act that enables tho Socialistic virus to do its work.

That there is an'actual tendency for the returns from, labour to diminish in this country appears undoubted. Mr. George Booth, in his evidence before a Parliamentary Committee acouple of years ago, quoted a specific caso in point. One of the witnesses for the workers stated frankly before the committee that a worker was quite right to give as little as possible for his wages. What Dr. Victor Clark said as the result of his observations.six years ago is still perfectly true: "Socialist theories may Ixj gradually and imperceptibly changing the/substratum of popular sentiment and . morals. These theories set up a new standard of property right. Their realisation would withdraw the motive for thrift and accumulation. They temper tho incentive to industry. . . . They foster among thoughtless men an impression that work is in itself an ovil.'l It is worth noting that even so firm a friend of the Arbitration Act and Socialism as Mr. Tregeau has been unable to deny absolutely that tho efficiency of the workers ig falling ofi- In Auckland the othcj-

day, he said that "neither the ability nor the integrity of labour in New Zealand has depredated in any notable degree," but he also said that "it may bo that wheu trade shows a downward tendency, when wages are without uny upward tendency, and there is no pressure of work, it is impossible for the same jntense application- to be used." It is a strange thing that it should be necessary to assure the worker that the more a nation produces the more it will have to consume, and the better olf the average member of that nation must be. Yet there are many workers who will not admit that most elementary of all truths — one of the few axiomatic truths, indeed, upon which every economist is agreed, however they may differ in other particulars. In the long event, the restriction o£ output, if persistently carried out, can lead only to stagnation and ruin. Capital will flow away to more productive regions, . and there will be less and less in the way of products for home consumption or for bartering for other products.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19100425.2.41

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 800, 25 April 1910, Page 6

Word Count
1,090

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1910. RESTRICTION OF OUTPUT. Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 800, 25 April 1910, Page 6

The Dominion MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1910. RESTRICTION OF OUTPUT. Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 800, 25 April 1910, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert