PUBLIC MONOPOLY

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 44, 20 August 1918, Page 3

PUBLIC MONOPOLY

RELATIONS OF CAPITAL

AND LABOUR

PROVISION OF BETTER

CONDITIONS

A LABOUR VIEWPOINT.

"The Economic Development of Industrial Legislation in New Zealand" was the subject of an address delivered by Mr. W. Reid, ex-President of the Trades and Labour Council, at the meeting of the ■ Wellington Industrial Association last night.

As a Labour man, he said, he naturally thought, when invited to read the paper, that the association was desirous of hearing a Labour view on the subject, and he had endeavoured to carry out the idea. As a general thing in the past, the Labour view had usually been propounded only to be condemned; but gradually the justice contained in the various proposals of Labour made a public impression, and came to be looked on with more favour.

Industrially, in the past, they had had disturbances cropping up periodically. They had had various suggestions made to overcome the difficulties mentioned : co-partnership of workers in businesses; closer connection between employers and employed; the personal touch, us it was sometimes called ; and other suggestions; but air of them. had proved to be impossible of application, or not to answer in its results so well as had been anticipated by its advocates. It would be noted that the troubles of industry mostly arose through' the apportionment of the product (value) created by industry. It was contended on the one hand that, apart from a wage, Labour had no right to any further interest in. the product (value) created; while, on the other hand, the contention was made that if there was any improvement (increase) in the amount of wealth produced, Labour ought to receive its fair return, either by way of a shortened working day. or increased remuneration for its services.

PERNICIOUS PROPOSALS.

There had been statements by prominent public men to the effect that the minimum wage doctrine was a pernicious one, and ought to be done away with. From, our standpoint," said Mr. Reid, "these are both pernicious proposals, and not in line with the vast developments and relations of Labour and Capital.- Further, if these are points on which employers generally insist, the attempt to enforce them will undoubtedly cause tremendous friction. We make the claim that there is no justification for any retrograde movement such as is iftdicated. but, rather, that all the reason is the other way. We argue that, with a continuous improvement in our methods of production, if there is any movement in our working day, it should tend to .shorten; that there is more reason for an increased minimum wage rather than a reduced one, in that by improved methods greater wealth is produced, rind thus more ought to be passed on to the workers." KNOTTY PROBLEM. The assertion had also been made that |_ they must have a tremendously increased * output from industries in the future, and in dealing with this question the labour man had a very knotty problem confronting him. Waste of effort was •rampant in our present society, and per-. r Eohallyi'he iheld: that .great saving; could be made in labour-power if they were to organise the whole of the distributing services. Distribution at present absorbed a goodly proportion of the labourpower. He ventured to say that if. they set out to rationally organise our distributive services generally, they could probably save 50 per cent, of the labour now being used there; and while doing tso could so arrange that the workers left, would have shorter hours, better wages, nnd much more favourable conditions than now obtained. On the question of the economic development of the future, it might be said that under our present arrangements it was impossible to do anything. In most cases industries were carried on in small ■ establishments which wore inadequately equipped.

PUBLIC MONOPOLY.

Mr. Reid referred to public monopoly, which had constantly been one of Labour's aims over a long period. Underlying the idea of public monopoly with lugard to production was the ethical one ot the oneness of the human family (the nation), and that was advocated to help bring about that ideal state of society which it was generally agreed was desirable if it could be attained. He referred co the operation of the State railways .and Post and Telegraph services, and said it followed that if this system of jjublic monopolies were to be entered upon as the iixed policy of any country or community, the best methods would have to be devised to attain the best' results. The chief advantages in its favour would be ample capital at its disposal, and also the best intellects to apply the means to the end. Suitable sites could be chosen after proper investigation, and t.he best modern equipment installed with the end in view • of securing the largest return for the least expenditure of labour-power. All waste effort should, as far as possible, bo eliminated; the underlying idea dominating such a policy being to make the country the happiest place possible for the community dwelling therein. Certain defects of our present industrial system could be overcome in such a-n organised scheme. For instance, such a, blight on the population as unemployment ought not to be allowed in any society nowadays ; and if there was any sense in the cry of increased production, that was a point under any system that would appear as an absurdity, for if they desired to increase production to the utmost extent, it was an absurdity to have men. looking for work —or, in other words, seeking to help production. If the public monopoly were generally agreed upon to be the next step in the course of social evolution, so far as Labour was concerned 1 there were certain concomitants attached to it. The first was that every person had • a right to live so long as he was prepared to render service to the community, but that no person had a right to draw on the community reserve who had not rendered service in building up the reserve. There should be no rights without duties attached. (.Applause.) POINTS DISCUSSED, The President of the association (Mr. F. J. Evans) thanked Mr. Reid for his •address. In doing so, he agreed with Mr. Reid's contention that ,it was necessary that the clashing of interests between employer and employed should be overcome. In regard to public monopolies, he said it was doubtful if Mr. Reid's "views would be generally acceptable.

In answer to a question, Mr. Beid contended that the present hours of labour could ho shortened if they directed their efforts towards, that end.

Mr. E. Bull urged that what could easily be worked in that way in a big country could not be so easily worked in a small country like New Zealand.

Tile Chairman asked if indoor work, for instance, was so exhausting that there shonld be a claim for reduction of hours from, Bay, 48 hours to 44 hours.

Mr. R«id replied that demands were based on a high ideal, but if the rate and production at 48 hours had been excessive, tha workers were entitled to

some portion of that extra production. In the course of,, further conversation he urged the necessity of developing our iron industry. Mr. 11. Mainland moved a vote of thanks to Mr. Reid for his address. He was of opinion that organisation was necessary; the old methods must go by the board

Mr. T. Balliuger asked why labour people had, such an objection to profitsharing. Mr. Reid said that, from experience of places in which it had been tried, labour had found that profit-sharing resulted in the worker working himself out to get a little extra, while the employer got a great deal more. Further, it had resulted in the workers breaking away from their organisations.

The vote of thanks was carried by acclamation.