The Dominion. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1920 EMPLOYERS AND INDUSTRIAL REFORM

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 226, 18 June 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1920 EMPLOYERS AND INDUSTRIAL REFORM

In a letter which appears in our open columns to-day, the general secretary of the New Zealand Employers' /Federation (Mit. W. Pryor) seeks to justify the recent refusal of that body to agree to a national industrial conference. Anyone who keeps the essential facts of the position in mind will be bound to conclude, in our opinion, that Mr. Pryob makes out a very poor caso. With much of what he says it, is possible to agree heartily. It is certainly true, for instance (and full emphasis was laid on the fact in the article to which he. refers), that serious obstacles to the introduction of better industrial conditions aro raised by the declared aims and attitude of many of|the present representatives of organised Labour. Instead, however, of justifying the refusal of the Employers' Federation' to agree to a - national industrial conference, this state of affairs emphasises tho extreme and urgent need _of a national effort to promote industrial peace and harmony. Endeavouring to vindicate what was in fact a serious error' of judgment on tho part of his federation, Mr, Pryor is led into-apparent self-contradic-tion. He asserts ih one place that a national industrial conference at this time "could only end iD resultless discussion excent in so far as anything done might help towards! the destruction of tho present social and industrial system. . . On the other hand many, passages in his long letter aim at showing that industrial conditions throughout the Dominion in fact leave little room for complaint. _ It is to by said at once that nothing but praise can be given to the efforts made by the federation, and by individual employers, to popularise and apply improved'methods of industrial organisation and establish better relations between employers and workers. But who will agree with Mr. Pryor that the results of the progressive efforts made by employers "are apparent all over the bominion," and that "to-day, more than ever before in" New Zealand, there is evidence of a better mutual understanding in many of our industrial establishments" 1 If these claims mean anything, they mean that the ruling trend in the Dominion is towards industrial pcacc. If 'this is so, what becomes of the reasons for which the employers have refused to agree Vj a national" industrial conference? In, fact, however, is It not a matter of common and universal knowledge that in the actual conditions of industry in the Dominion, the desirable picture paintedby Mr. Pryor is as nearly as possible < reversed 1 ! It is hardly necessary to appeal >to the detail evidences of industrial unrest and unsound industrial conditions thnt are continually being_ afforded. Hardly a day goes by without some new outbreak of industrial trouble. Tho issues raised are often petty, but this only emphasises the widespread failure of workers and employers to reach a sound mutual understanding.

Ifc is because the prevailing antagonism in Industry injures and threatens the welfare of t.hc whole community, and because the public cannot be expected to passively and contentedly accept such conditions, that the position ought to be reviewed at a. national industrial conference. While there is no doubtthat the irreconcilable attitude of many who now sneak for Labour makes it impossible to hone for any great approach to working, agreement at such a conference, ifc is impossible to follow Mit. I'RYOn in his argument that the gathering would simply aid the extremists "in their scheme to wine the employers out of existence." Even if it did nothing for the 1 time beinpr to brim? the parties into harmony, the conference, as we have maintained and still maintain, would serve an all-important purpose in setting the aims of the employers and those of organised Labour in effective contrast, not'merely before the assembled delegates, but before the country at large. In such a test, those who are sincerely intent on constructive progress have nothing to fear; those who are intent only on destroying what they do not know how to reconstruct or replace to better advantage have everything to fear. With employers frankly committed to a policy of industrial progress and reform, the representatives of Labour at a national industrial conference could not justify themselves, much less extend their influence, either by a negative policy of obstruction or by enunciating Bolshevik doctrincs of upheaval and destruction. Even, if it led to no agreement to co-operate in developing better and more efficient industrial organisation, the conferoncn might yet mark a-.great turning point by giving the public a ready key to a sound_ understanding of the industrial situation. The ; whole fault to be found with the

employers in their refusal to agree to a national conference is tnat they aro neglecting the most effective means of marshalling public opinion in support of a sound policy of industrial reform. If rapid and substantial progress is to bo made on these fines it is undoubtedly essential in the first instance to clear away the atmosphere of distortion and misrepresentation created by Labour extremists and demonstrate that their real purposetoo often their real achievementis not to represent the worlicrs, hut to arouso endless antagonism between them and their employers with whom their interests are in all respects identified. It does not seem unduly optimistic, to believe that the first great step in tliis direction might be taken at a national industrial conference and that the outcome, in. educating and enlightening the public, would be highly beneficial, irrespective of any immediate approach made by the parties in industry to agreement and cooperation.