HAS IT FAILED?

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 125, 31 May 1927, Page 4

HAS IT FAILED?

ARBITRATION COURT

PEACE OR DISRUPTION?

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The Arbitration Court and the 1.0. and A. Act of 1925 hu lately been receiving the critical attention of.the professors of economics of thU countryand both the professors «f Christehoreh and Wellington that have set' their minds to the matter came to the conclusion that the afore-mentioned Act and Court had outlived their usefulness and should be scrapped. Whilst we do not assume ability to contest With such economic giants as-'. Professors B. B. Murphy, of Wellington, and Professor Cunliffe, of Christchurch, yet we know from experience that sometimes " there is an error that proceeded from the ruler, and folly set forth fn great dignity." Professor B. E. Murphy, in hig address to the Agricultural Society of New Zealand on 26th May, exhibited a formidable array of economic theories against the I.C. and A. Act and the Court, but submitted few practical and useful economic facts conducive to. industrial peace and commercial stability. 4t is apparent that the prof eator is viewing the whole national economicsituation from the parochial pinnacle of the Agricultural Society, and condemning the Court and its system of fixing wages upon the plea of present reduced and unprofitable prices obtainable for agricultural commodities, and high cost of farming' materials; therefore, the deductions of the argument are that profits should be the basis of fixing wages, and where there are no profits ■ there should be no wages. It is clear that the! Agricultural Society is quite satisfied with the high price of money and lack of credit, and has no complaints against the exorbitant price of land and tke stranglehold of "the mortgagor on the farmers' property and life. Those things are trifles and not worth the notice of the professor. Wages only were dealt with, and in so much as wages under the present economic system are not only the measure' of human comfort and happiness but the key to more production/The higher the purchasing power of the people the greater the consumption of goods produced and the greater demand for their production. A high cost of living within a country is its,, greatest failure in competition with other countries, and the wages at present paid in this country are fixed as near as possible to the-Statistician's figures, which are below the 1914 basis. If it is the intention of the Agricultural Society to remove the I.C. and A. Act, 1985, with the view of forcing wages down below the present low standard of living (and all argument points-that way)j then to the workers of this country life will not be worth living, and the consequences may be fatal to the.credit and industrial stability of New Zealand. The welfare of the worker is the welfare of the State, and instead of meeting in council to devise ways and means of further impoverishing, the 1 waireearner we should mWetin conference to discuss the cost of living and the reduction of house rents and shop rents that are to-day putting business men into bankruptcy and mothers almost into lunacy. Professor Mnrphy suggests that the I.C. and A. Act, 1925, shtll be repealed. ..Strikes will be then legalised, and direct action on the job will be considered the right thing: Second- '• ly he suggests, adding the 'present conciliation machinery of the -Arbitration Act to the Labour Department Act on a voluntary,:basis;;': 3>m-\ metfcbdVhasbeen in operation in^BHgla^airilttrinir the last twenty years, with the wellknown results of destructive, and revo-. lutionary strikes. The professor makes appoint- of showing^^ that the^-GouTt- in L this country had failed to prevent Btrikes, nnd he enumerates all the trivial stoppages since the inception of the Act, which, compared with countries! where voluntary arbitration has operated m settlement of disputes, are v I flea-bites to crocodile-jaw grips. When the Act is repealed, wha> has happened continually during the laat twenty-fire years in England will happen in/New isealand, the machinery <tf conciliation by constant refusal to ; meet by either party will rust In uselessness, and the GOTermnent in all cases called to, intervene. The professor Admits that stoppages that stoppages wll increase initially, but that the benefits to. he derived from the restoration of the rjjght to strike: finding the proper place to rest responsibility for industrial disruption (other than the Arbitration Court), which he states Is now used as the scapegoat for trade union leadership blundering, and last, but not least, the graciously opening bf ;the , workers' mind to the realisation that production and not cost of living-''artificially held up by the Court" is the proper economic basis for computing wages, will more than compensate for any (stoppages that will occur, since the workers will gradually adapt themselves to the new conditions and industrial militancy will melt into sweet satisfaction.

Having had experience in countries where voluntary arbitration operates, I cannot endorse the professor's optimistic voluntary conciliatory industrial outlook. To arm the opposing parties with the sword of industrial war is not the way to industrial peace. It is rathar a backward step from the intellectual to the barbaric stage. What is meant by the professor when he refers to "vexatious regulations now hampering industry!'' Whatever they may b«, it can be assured that, they have been, granted by the Court only after hearing truthful and satisfactory evidence that<such regulations were absolutely necessary and not prejudicial to industry.. He condemns the "standard of living" basis of computing wages, and suggests the adoption of payment by production. He has "not made it plain whether it shall be individual or national mass production. I take it that he means the mass production of the whole country. As the cost of living is now computed for the whole of New Zealand, so also will the whole production of New Zealand at its exportable value and its local wholesale value be the basis for the computing of wages.

However, the profesaor has not given us details of his plan of payment by production, and we can only surmise that individual production being only the object of localised management, and only an atom in the mass production of a country, it cannot be meant to be a basis for payment of wages, other than, in industries where piecework can be operated.

The professor complains of the "inquisitorial interference" now practised in carrying out the cost of living basis: what will be the inquisitorial interference required to find a basis for wages fixed upon production t U the true measure of social justice re> ferred to by the professor is to be secured, the whole productive cards of production and prices will have to be laid upon the table, and passed-by national accountants as a correct statement of national wages and production account. It would operate upon similar lines to the national Welsh miners' sliding scale of, 1890, whence production arid selling price of coal formed the basis for wages. But why Ihe commotion against the present syslemt . Are the workers, of this eountr.r too well paid, or is it the desire ,oi the employers; farmers/univertitiei, and the Government to; reduce tya yti ge-earning population below the living Jinet They ' may do lio/but the operation will prove more fraught witji iperll than can be imagined.—l am, etc., J. TUCKER, Secretary Storemen't Union. i Trade* Hall. . . ..... r . _„._.. j