MEN WHO GOME BACK

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2764, 6 May 1916, Page 8

MEN WHO GOME BACK

GETTING EMPLOYMENT

AID IN LEARNING TRADES

THAT OJiDER-IN-COUNCIL

LABOUR UNIONS' OBJECTIONS

Every since it was passed, Labour organisations have been passing resolutions condemnatory of the Urder-in-Council '.suspending 'the provisions of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act and of awards of tho Arbitration Court'which may provent or. restrict the employment of discharged soldiers. The reasons why organised labour objects to the Ordcr-in-Council were put before tho Prime Minister yesterday "by a, deputation representative of trades unions in most centres of importanco throughout New Zealan'd.

' Present Safeguards Enough. Mr. M. J. Reardon submitted on behalf of the deputation that there wero ho restrictions on tho employment of discharged soldiers that had not always been provided for under, existing law, and tnat tho . only purpose achieved by the Order-iu-CouncU was to point tho way to unscrupulous employers to employ discharged soldiers at low wages, ro tho disadvantage of those men previously employed. By getting an underrate worker's permit, a discharged soldier, who was usually a. single mail, would get employment in preference to another, whose only reason for not going to the front was that ho was a married man. This, ho submitted, was an unfair position, to take up, even on behalf of the returned soldier. Mr. Reardon read a typical under,-rate worker's clause in an award to show that it was- wide enough in its operation to permit of any returned soldier getting employment under it should he require auoh a permit. So far as they had been able to ascertain, he said, the position was that where a man was getting a pension from the Government, this pension was considered by tho employer practically as a bonus, making it possible for him to engage that man .it a lower rato of pay. The employer was the only person to gain any advantage, and he gained that advantage at tho expense of the soldier, and of the married men in the industry who were not in a position to serve at .the front. The proposal was unnecessary and unfair, and the deputation asked the Government to reconsider the Order-in-C-ouncil. In this they wore voicing tho opinion of working men throughout tho country.

The Unscrupulous Employer. The Hon. J. T. Paul said that ona regrettable'feature about the making of the Order-in-Council was that it had been done without any attempt by tho Government to come to an understanding with organised labour.- This was unfortunate, becauso organised labour, had at hand information and data not possessed by any other class or department.. Thero was no antagonism between organised-labour and tho returned soldiers. All workers admitted the debt of gratitude" t'Jio country owed to returned soldiers, and organised labour would bo "only too willing to'co-operate in placing returned soldiers back in industry. Tho fundamental' difference between tho' Order-in-Council and tho present law was that tho Order-in-Council proposed to permit men with no knowledge of an industry being admitted to that industry. ■ Thin was prohibited in the. Act. ; Tho Order also interfered with statute law in regard to tlio proportion of apprentices. Ho cited ono case of abuse which' had occurred in Dunedin. A grocer had sought .to employ a. returned soldier at £2 ss. per week, as a driver,' when the award wage for a driver was £2 175." 6d., but when tho soldier learned; the truo position from the Grocers' Union officials, ho did not take the .job.

Mr. Massey: But what lias all this to ! do with 1 tho _ Order-in-G'ouncil ? Thu Order-in-Council refers only to_ skilled trades, andyou call the occupation of a grocer's driver a skilled trade. . Tlio Ordor-in-Couhoil was never intended to apply to a case like that. Mr. Paul said that the Government no doubt had the best intentions in tlie world in Issuing ,tho Order-in-Conncil, hut it was a mistake. He must admit, in fairness to employers generally, that the majority oftthem appeared to be anxious to deal fairly and squarely by returned soldiers,'-' but there was an unscrupulous minority, for whom the restrictions of the law were necessary. Some employers adopted this attitude: that if 'i .man was receiving £1 or £1 {is. a'week lie could afford well .enough to accept a .lower rale of wage than that prescribed in the award..' '

Mr. Holland's Vlaws. Sir. H. Holland disputed Mr. Massoy's contention that the Order-iu-Couneil applied- only to skilled trades. Further, ho contended that by suspending tlio operation of statute lav; the Government would' be establishing a very bad precedent. The Ordor would cnuso injustieo to tho workers, but a ,far greater -fn'justice to the returned soldiers. The effcct of it would be that the pension allowed by the State' would gov.to' the employor and not to the soldier. This very system had already oomo into—being in Ucnnnny. Employers" wero reducing tlio wages of ruen back from tlio war by the amount paid to those soldiers as pensions. He contended that a soldier_ ought to receive whilo on active service the highest tilling rate of wages, and if ho returned disabled ho should got a pension equivalent to the highest ruling rate nf wages. If a country would not do this, then that country was not worth fighting for.

The Scheme Explained, Mr.' Massey, replying, said that all three speakers had expressed the opinion that the Order-in-CounciL would give unscrupulous employers an opportunity to take advantago of returned soldiers and their other employees. But it was not the intention of the Government or the Department that the regulation should operate in this way. Of course, there were unscrupulous employers, j-'ist as there 'were unscrupulous employees. There would bo numbers of men coming back to Now Zealand who would not be able to get back to tho work in which they were engaged prior to going to the war.. For instance, a man might bo so disabled that ho could not work as a carpenter, but with a little training ho might be able to work rb a cabinet.makor. A man who Had been working at a skillod trade, at ivhich it was nccossary to walk about freely, might be so injured that ho could not walk about easily, and yet ho might, with a certain amount of training take up some kindred occupation. Tho Order-in-Council. was intended to give a man an opportunity t.o get this training. "Now," he said, "is there any objection to a inau doing that? I want an answer from the doputation." Mr. Holland: Why not pay him a pension that will allow him to liva decently? Mr. Massey said that the Pensions Act in New Zealand was the best in the world, aud tho Government intended to make it better. Mr. Reardon said that under the old arrangement tho undor-rato workers' i permits were issued with the consent

of the unions. The objection to tho Order-in-Council ivas that under it tho unions would have nothing to say. Mr. Massoy said that the unions would come into the arrangement. And the wages and everything elso pertaining to the employment of a returned soldier taking advantage of tho Order-in-Council would be fixed by tho Inspector of Factories after consultation with the employer, and' the returned soldier, nnd the union. .

Mr. Paul: You couldn't do less than that. Mr. Massey: You left the impression that tho employer had . an opportunity of fixing with the employee the rate of W3ges at which the soldier was to bo employed. That is not the case nt all. The rate of wages is fixed by a third party, w*iio has. nothing to 'do with either one or the otlier.

In Whose interest? Mr. Reardon said that tho under-rate worlteiV clause was better than this. It was left to the worker to arrange with his friends in tho union, and it they could not come to terms as to tho rate at w!«ich 'he was to bo employed, the worker then went to the official of the Labour Department. Mr. Massoy said the cases were not quito parallel. Tho under-rate clause applied to tho caao of a man already in a trade. Such a man could easily ccmo to an arrangement with his friends in the union. But tho Order-in-Council applied to the.man'who could ret go back to his former employment, but who expected to be ablo to work at another trade after a certain amount ol training. It. was necessary for this man to have the aid of a third party to got into that new trade. He believed that tho Order-in-Council would help returned soldiero, but he did not object to the unions looking after their own interests.

Mr. E. Kennedy: It is the teturned soldier we are looking after. Mr. Massey: I listened very carefully to what you said, and I must say ybur remarks did not convey to me that impression. '-. Mr. Holland: I stressed that point. Mr. Massey: I listened with great care and a. very great deal of interest to what Mr. Holland had to say. Something would have to bo done, he continued, to find work for tho man who came back partially disabled. , Mr. Holland: Why not give him enough'pension to live on? Mr. Massey expressed the opinion that whatever pension a man received he would he much bettor to liavo something to do. If he himself were a young man returned from the front he thought lie would, bo happier if he had some regular occupation. .Mr. Kennedy: Can't the Government start some factories and put these men in them? . Mr. Massey: I am bound to admit that I have very little confidence in Government factories. (Laughter.) Jlr, Massey assured the deputation-that tho Order-in-Council was nob intended to asfist, any person to reduce wages. The intention of it was to give tho returned soldier a chance. If the unions could show him any other-way of doing this, he would be quite willing t<> adopt it.

What the Men Fight For. lie hoped that after the war thoro would bb 50,000' men coming back toHhe country, and we must find room for them., We must do our duty by them, even if it did cause a certain amount of inconvenience.' "I listened to Mr. Holland when speaking in regard to the rato of pay and wages of soldiers," said Mr. Massey. "That raises tho whole question of what wo are lighting for. Our men are not fighting Jor money. They are not mercenaries." ' Mr:M'Konzie: The men who stay at home get the money. Another: And they will uso the returned soldiers when tlioy get .back to get more money. , Mi. Massey set id that he was over military age,' and, as salaries go, he was receiving a good salary) not, of course, nearly so much as lie was worth. (Laughter.) But if he wero of military ago ho would gladlv givo up the salary and go. He was' merely citing his own case as an instance. That was the sentiment ; of thousunds of men in the country, and the men who wero going to the? front were .going not for tile pay they were to get, but because they recognised that it was tehir duty to go. ■ Mr. Holland: I would object tQ my. wife and children being in want'while I was away. 1

Mi. Massey said tliat the Government also ■ saicl thatj - and did not encourage mon with largo families to go. It was the duty of th'o, community to seo that those left behind were not in want. '. Blathonvick: Lwill go to-morrow if you will look after my lot. Mr. Massoy: A lot depends on what you ask. You are probably a tradesman—l don't know—earning 125.. 13s or 14s. a day. . ;

.Mr. Blatherwiik: Can you support a wife and four children oil much'less? Mr. Massey. said that pqrhaps from one point ' of view the amount was not too much, but it was not possible to pay millions of riien such rates. Jn the end, Mr. lleardon suggested,to Air. Massoy that lie should prepare a. scheme to be submitted to tiie ! Minister, which would provide for rll that was necessary, and make it possible to do without the Order-in-Council. Mr. Massey said.that he would have pleasure in considering any xcasqnable proposals for this purpose.