The Evening Post

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 61, 9 September 1905, Page 4

The Evening Post

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1905. THE EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION. There was nothing of a very striking character in the agenda of tho annual conference of tho New Zealand iimploycrs' Federation whicli was held in this city on Wednesday and Thursday last. Routine business and t'ho revision of the constitution appear to have occupied a largo parfc of its attention, and the resolutions pa&sed on the subject of legislation were neither so numerous nor so polemical as usual. "Tho principle of payment for services rendered " was strongly affirmed in one resolution, which proceeded to add that the Federation "does not 'object to the payment of overtime, but where overtime prevails wages should be determined by the number of 'hours actually worked; that, subject to the' provisions of the Factories Act, we insist that at is unfair that employers should have to pay for holidays when o value is rendered." There cannot be much difficulty in the mind of 'any reasonable man about/ accepting the principle affirmed by the conference, the difficulty being, as Mr. Frostdck pointed out with regard to the fundamental principle of all the labour laws, in the application. Preference to unionists continues to be anathema to the employers, and the resolution of the ■conference on ithis subject was of a sweeping and somewhat confused character :—": — " That the policy of preference to unionists, being contrary to the individual right of tho citizen, and it having 'been declared to be ultra vires by the highest authority in the Commonwealth, this Federation agrees to contest this demand on every possible occasion." It would be ns reasonable to oppose any limitation whatever of .the hours of adult labour because^ the Supreme Cpurt of the United States has declared that, such an attempt on tho part of any State Legislature is ultaa vires under" tho Federal Constitution, as to argue that tha decision of the High Court of Australia upon the construction of a particular section of tfie Arbitration Act of new South Wales affords any guidance whatever on the abstract question of the propeT limits of legislative interference or judicial interference. Neither in law nor in reason is the -one decision any more binding upon the Parliament or CouTto of New Zealand than the other, and neither throws the faintest light upon any of our "problems .beyond illustrating the already notorious fact that the Courts must take the Legislature to liave meant what it has said, even when the consequence- is something fat beyond its contemplation. For our part, wo aro- unablo to see why eithor tho employers or the workers should trouble to oppose the principle of preference as recognised in Now Zealand under tho existing law. As the organisation of labour is essential to tho due working of the labour laws, it is surely right that organised labour should have a preference, and when tho terms of that preference are left to tho discretion of a Court which invariably awards it on condition only that the organisation docs not become a close corporation or oligarchy of labour, the result is one which ought to satisfy both parties, as it undoubtedly satisfies the public at large. But while unionists continue to clamour for (in unconditional, statutory preference, eini plovers only serve to redress the balance

when they as unreasonably repudiate the whole principle. It was not, however, by these resolutions, nor by any other of the proceedings at their business meetings, but by their utterances at the banquet and at the interview with the Premier, that the employers made their most interesting and valuable contributions to the enlightenment of public opinion. The general tone of cheerfulness and buoyancy which pervaded these utterances was in agreeable contrast to the querulous, alarmed, and irritated noto which has been not uncommon on previous occasions of a similar kind. There was less of the usual denunciation of the claims of labour, and, without getting so far ais to be eulogistic of the labour legislation, the speakers showed an unprecedented mildness in their antagonism to it which indicates at any rate something like a quiescent resignation to the inevitable, and a clear recognition that the devil they have been fighting is not quite so black as their fancy once painted him. A very happy product of this nlore hopeful and conciliatory spirit was mentioned by Mr. Q. Anderson, the President of the Canterbury Employers' Association. He said that in Christcliurch the Industrial Association "had succeeded in getting unionists and employers to work jointly on a committee to consider the position of local industries, their relation to the labour laws, and how to face outside competition. It was good that the labour people in Christchurch had recognised that there was something better than exploiting the capitalist in the colony." The Ohristchurch labour leaders will no doubt reciprocate this compliment, and express their satisfaction that the capitalist has now some higher aspiration than the exploitation of labour. This co-operation of the' representatives of employers and workmen on the same committee is a very hopeful sign, and opens up a prospect of genuine understanding and goodwill which the cat-and-dog business of statutory conciliation has utterly failed to realise. It is to tliqse lines that Victoria, has hitherto confined her legislation on the subject, and if a comparison with New South Wales could be regarded as a sufficient test of the merits of the two'"systems, the eiudence is enliroly in favour of the voluntary scheme wheih finds favour in Victoria. It will be remarkablo indeed if in New Zealand, after the attempt at conciliation by compulsion of law has resulted for the most part in irritation, a voluntary system can be established outside the law to succeed where the law has failed. . The presence of such a commop danger as is threatened by the operations of the American Har-, vester Trust may well hasten v the hopeful process. With regard to the Arbitration Court, which has succeeded almost as conspicuously as the Boards have failed, a remarkable statement was made by Mr. J. C. Thomson, of Dunedin, who is now the President of the Federation. "For years," he euid, "the Arbitration Court used to base its awards on the demands of the union and on what was said by the other 6ide. The Court was now making its awards on a broader and much bettor basis, in that it too|j into consideration the effect of the proposed conditions on the industry as a whole. This was a great safeguard." The country will be plcused to have this encouraging testimony, and the result must to a considerable extent be ascribed to the better organisation of the employers, resulting in the better presentation of their claims. But the reasonable spirit which they have displayed in their recent proceedings will prove a more valuable safeguard for them in the public- esteem than auy that formal legal protection or the most elaborate organisation can supply.