"LABOUR SHARES"

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 91, 14 October 1926, Page 13

"LABOUR SHARES"

A NEW ZEALAND ACT

ITS PROMOTER IN BRITAIN

AN INDUSTRIAL PEACE IDEA.

The issue of labour shares under the Companies Empowering Act, 192-1 is at present being considered by various employers in New Zealand. So far as the issue of shares witli tho approval of- the Arbitration Court is concerned, one or two applications lip./c been dealt with by the Court. It is possible that in other cases employers have issued shares by private arrangement. The lay father of tho Act, Mr. H. Valdcr, chairman of directors of the sawmilling firm of Ellis and Burnand, Ltd., is in Britain advocating the principle, with him the Rev. F. Harty, vicar of Franklin. They have published through Messrs. Unwin Bros. .1 shilling booklet entitled: "Wanted: A Practical Solution to Britain's Industrial Problem —a Contribution from New Zealand." Under date Stii September, the London correspondent of "The Post" says it is attracting a good deal of attention.

In his foreword, Sir Lyndon Macassey, a governor of the London School of Economics, writes: "Peace in industry, I do not hesitate-to say, is our greatest national need. There is, I really /believe, the will, but as yet even men with the will have not found the way. Probably there is no royal road to peace for every industry. The plan outlined for this book is a well considered attempt to" indicate a way on the part of one who has had large experience of industry; and for many years has given much earnest thought to the problem. It is no small endorsement of its right to consideration that the- New Zealand Government " should have passed in 1924, a public Act to authorise and facilitate its adoption." "FIRST PRINCIPLES." Reviewing the booklet in the "Manchester Guardian," Bishop Gore points out that his review is not intended to satisfy any inquirer, but is intended to direct'the reader's attention to it so that-there may lie obtained much fuller information and a very interesting series of opinions from competent outsiders.. The bishop remarks: — "When wo hear of Britain's industrial problem we think at once of the long-continued stoppage in the coal industry. That is in the minds of all of us. According to our proclivities, we have all been finding fault with the miners, or the owners, or the Government or with all the parties concerned and have been eagerly looking for a '<!way out.' But wo are apt to isolate the particular trouble and to forget that it is. only one manifestation, of a very long-continued disorder in our industrial life. It is quite possible that the stoppage in the coal industry may still be brought to an end. For instance, it is possible that the miners may be defeated. But if they go back to work sullen and embittered, and if the terms on which they go back are such as to make trade unionists in general feel 'themselves worsted aud dishonoured, while they feel at tho same time that their-real cause is just, the momentary solution may prove to be no real solu--1 tion, but only an aggravation of" tho problem. ' The merit of the recentlypublished pamphlet of Messrs. Harty and Valdcr is that, as it claims, it 'takes us back to first principles,' and also outlines a definite plan on ■ the lines of which something might be done in all industries, without violent change, to base our industrial life in general on a sounder principle . . . POSSIBLE DECAY OF INDUSTRY. ''Two remarks in conclusion. I have just-read George Trevolyan's 'History of England.' Prom that history I seem to see that a real democracy, based on a leal equality of opportunity, is the goal to which the past points us and tho legitimate ontcome of universal suffrage. No doubt our present condition of industrial struggle might lead to revolution and bloodshed. But I do not think that is probable. What is probable is that it will lead to tho weakening and decay of our industry as a whole, which would be disastrous for all of us. - If that is to be prevented ■it must-be by a fundamental reconstruction of industry on the basis of a real apprehension of what a democratic State means. This does not involve any .such Socialism as is inconsistent with a large measure of individualism. It is a question of degree" and balance. "It is often maintained that it is to theunshared control by the master and to the stimulus given to him by the opportunity to amass an unlimited fortune that industrial progress has come about and has been maintained. But the individual master has almost gone. Capital and labour —that is, the constituents of industry—are no functions and properties of tho whole community, which is also consumer and exporter. Plenty of room can bo left for indiyidual initiative and for reward according to the value of work done; and the stimulus to make the average worker do his best which such a scheme as tho pamphlet suggests would supply, coincidently with the removal oi suspicions by assured knowledge, would surely enormously benefit industry as a "whole, out of all proportion to the possible loss due, to tho reduction of stimulus upon a few individuals, if such there sjiould be." "COULD BE TRIED HERE." : The "Financial Times": "Tho largo majority of co-partnership projects are conceived either as social reform experiments or as philanthropic departures —they err fundamentally iv regarding as a concession or a benoficenco what should be considered as a right. The New Zealand proposal does not make this mistako, and by adopting the mechanism of company legislation not only removes the question out of tho controversial sphere, but makes it a part pf the ordinary procedure of tho joint stock administration of business , which is now the main f eaturo of our commercial life. Wo are not above ' learning from our colonies, and accordingly welcome tho effort Mr. Valder, in conjunction with Mr. Frank Harty, is making to assist in the solution of our own industrial problems by calling attention to what is, being done in New Zealand. Whether at home or abroad, there is no difference in the disastrous effect that continued strife between Capita! and Labour has upon our economic existence. It damages not only our commercial efficiency, but prevents us from raising tho general standard Of life much higher than we could were the chief factors of production on harmonious terms. . . We should think t c principle could bo tried here even without statute authority— though tho no par value scrip might be a difficulty—and we should like to sco it in operation, so that its results could be studied at first hand."