The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1917. THE RELATIONS OF CAPITAL AND LABOUR

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3195, 20 September 1917, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1917. THE RELATIONS OF CAPITAL AND LABOUR

* Comparisons arc not always odious. They sometimes point a very' useful moral. For instance, to compare the active enterprise with which other' countries are attacking the problems of economic- and industrial organisation . which the war has thrown into clear prominence with the almost total neglect of_ the same problems in this Dominion is to realise that we are neglecting golden opportunities, and, if not inviting disaster, at lefst very gravely jeopardising our future prosperity. It is not an unmixed blessing that the war has touched us lightly in its effects on trade and industry. As one result we have escaped, to our loss, the powerful stimulus to improved efficiency and the adoption of better methods which has operated with such marked" effeot in Britain, France, and elsewhere. The pinch of actual and compelling necessity I has taught these countries that methods which served before the war will serve no longer. In New Zealand we have as yet been spared this hard lesson, but a very slight consideration of the outlook w'll show that our immunity is not indefinite. It is self-evident that we are rapidly approaching a period of extreme economic stress. In themselves the burdens imposed by the war will tend to hamper development and production and to impose hardships, in greater or less degree, upon every section of tho community. AVe have it in our own hands to minimise these hardships, but a_ policy of enlightened enterprise is essential if we are to attempt anything 'in that direction. For anything that appears to the contrary the opinion at present • in favour in this country seems to be that instead of planning and organising boldly to meet the unexampled conditions which will arise after the war, or perhaps during the war if it lasts, much longer, we must proceed on tho principle of trusting to happy chance. This ' purblind apathy is particularly apparent in tho matter of industrial organisation. Long before tho war the shortcomings of our industrial system were sufficiently evident. Employers and employees are organised in hostile camps, and intelligent co-operation between those who should bo partners in industry is practically non-existent. A system devised for the purpose could hardly do more to limit production and to promote barren conflict between two sections of the'community who would servo their common interests and the general interests of the country by exhausting the possibilities of co-operation. The underlying evils of our existing industrial policy are those upon which Dp.. Addison, now British Minister for Reconstruction, laid his finger when he said: Nothing in the relations of Capital and Labour gives rise more to difficulty and distrust than two customs which lu'o dependent upon one another. The first is tho cutting of rates of pay in piecework so as to limit tho rise of earnings when improved methods of manufacture, lending to a great output, are introduced. It is not the practice of tho best employers, but it is adopted by many. This practice—or tho fear of it —has inevitably led to the second and retaliatory practice of restriction of output. The- influence of these two practices in our industrial life is thoroughly poisonous. AVe must establish a system whereby .both parties have a direct interest in the introduction of improved methods. Cutting of rates of pay on piecework is not a feature of industrial life in New Zealand, but here as in Great Britain the first essential to reform is that both parties in industry should have a direct interest in the introduction of improved mothods. So far as the practical application of ideas .is concerned, wo have thus far stupidly ignored tho fact that maximum production in an industry is equally in the interests of those engaged in it, whether as employers or employees, and of those whom they serve. We are now approaching a time when we shall be taught by bitter cxpori-

cncc, if wo do not learn it otherwise, that to lift the production of wealth to a point of maximum efficiency is the only way to cope with heavy national burdens, and at tho same timo to provide a remedy for the increasing cost of living which is already a subject of universal complaint. It_ casts heavy discredit upon the National Government and upon tho labour, commercial, and employers' organisations which might have been expected to spur it to purposeful aotivity ira tho matter that as yet, in spite of the illuminating experience of the war, hardly anything has been attempted in this country fa the direction of promoting industrial efficiency. Wo have referred to this matter in an article which follows. Wo may say here that politicians cannot plead_ in extenuation that the questions involved aro contentious and cannot bo dealt with in a period of party truco. It Is as much the duty of'tho.National Government to put tho country into the best possible shape to meet afterwar conditions as to carry it through the war, and it is no more pardonable to neglect tho promotion of industrial efficiency than it would bo to neglect recruiting. Neithor is it possible to plead that tta way of reform is obscure and difficult to find. All that wo need do is to follow ,the lead given in countries which are grappling in successful enterprise with far more complex and intractable problems of industrial organisation than confront us in this Dominion. Britain, in particular, is capping her tremendous •industrial achievements of tho war period by evolving la comprehensive reorganisation designed to permanently uplift industry and indefinitely expand production. _ _In striking contrast with the conditions which exist in this country the best brains of Capital _ and Labour aro jointly concentrating on the task. The lines upon which progress is Ceing mado are indicated in the recommendations! of the Whitley subcommittee of tho Reconstruction Committee which wc reviewed aft a recent article. The' sub-committee recommended the establishment of industrial councils—shop, district, and national—on which both employers and employees would bo represented, with a' view to the fullest possible eo-operation in industrial enterprise and development. This proposal, aiming as it does at an absolute reversal of pre-war conditions, is widely supported by British Labour organisations as well as by employers. The latest evidence, of Labour support is afforded in tho report of the Commission of Inquiry into Industrial Unrest, which recontly .concluded a comprehensive inquiry in the industrial districts of England, Scotland, and Wales. Tho Commissioners recommend that tho principle of tho Whitley report should be adopted, and state that, broadly speaking, tho proposals it advances appear to have mot with general approval. Our alternative to adopting a similar policy of enterprise in this country isto invite conditions which will heavily penalise our neglect. As a result of the existing relations between Capital and Labour and the utter lack of rational co-operation, production is at all times seriously hampered, and there is an ever-present danger of disastrous industrial conflict. These evils, if the conditions out of which they arise are not remedied, will be magnified indefinitely in the stringent conditions which must be expected to arise beforo long. There is only one remedy, and to go on neglecting it would be suicidal. The Government and both sections in industry must substitute action for apathy, cast off prejudice and the futile methods which have become habitual, and attack tho problem of industrial reorganisation as boldly as it has been attacked in Groat Britain.