Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1936. INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND PLENTY

Evening Post, Issue 82, 6 April 1936, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1936. INDUSTRIAL PEACE AND PLENTY

Restoration of full arbitration privilege's is the cliief provision of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill which was introduced in the House of Representatives last week. The Bill, however, goes very much further than this. It provides for a basic wage, the forty-hour week, compulsory unionism, awards for workers not employed for profit, Dominion-wide unions and awards, and various minor alterations of the existing law. With respect to the,restoration of what is commonly termed compulsory arbitration, we anticipate that there will be no strenuous opposition. Parliament, as we stated at the time, went too far in closing the Court unless both parties to a dispute consented to arbitration. There was a strong case for making recourse to arbitration less automatic and for encouraging the parties to make greater use of the conciliation provision's of the law; but it would have been wiser to leave the door more open. As it was not left open it is not surprising that the Labour Government; now it has the power, has decided to revert to the old method, not only without modification, but with an extension of the facilities for recourse to the Court. Of the wisdom of some of these extensions we are doubtful. We can only hope, however, that the lesson of recent events has not passed unheeded, and that Unions will remember in future, if they wish to retain arbitration, they must accept it. The law cannot be accepted only when it appears to give benefit to the workers.

Arbitration will, however, have much wider scope than formerly. The Court is directed to fix basic wages, and, except under certain conditions, to provide for the forty-hour week. The basic wage is not actually a great departure from the previous Court practice of deciding what wage should be awarded for the lowestpaid adult worker. The greatest difference is that the Court will now be required to fix this on a set standard (maintenance in reasonable comfort of a wife and two children) and to review it periodically. Whether the provision operates reasonably or otherwise will depend, we think, upon the freedom allowed ,to the Court. The Bill says that the Court is to have regard to the general economic and financial conditions affecting trade and industry in New Zealand, and also to the cost of living. This is wide enough to allow for a basic wage which will not be detrimental to industry; but if the Court is ordered to conform to an outside standard, without regard to the conditions affecting industry, wages may be increased but the capacity of industry to provide employment may be diminished. Even more strongly does this condition —that the Court be given absolute freedom—apply to the fortyhour week proposal. We have previously expressed our own doubts on the wisdom of attempting to apply an hours-reduction measure generally in New Zealand, and we have not space to repeat the arguments here. Manufacturers are apprehensive of the probable increase in costs, and they have been assured that they will have added protection. This must involve higher costs to someone. The farmer may have his recompense in a guaranteed price, but the salaried and professional classes, it appears to us, will be in danger again of experiencing a squeeze between the upper lt and nether millstones. If, however, the injury is not to extend beyond the silently-suffering middle-class the Arbitration Court must be permitted a wide discretion in bringing the forty-hour week into operation. There is provision for this in the Bill. The Court is to be permitted to fix hours in excess of forty where it is satisfied that "it would be impracticable to carry on efficiently any industry with a forty-hour week." This does not, of course, allow the Court to give a judgment on the general question of the shorter week. The Legislature, under the Bill, takes that issue out of the hands of the Court; but if the discretionary power is not curtailed inconvenience may be minimised. The community will have to pay the cost, but the Court in its discretion may avoid some of the worst pitfalls.

In the forty-hour week, the restoration of arbitration and various other provisions the unions gain advantages for which they have been long contending. They will be placed in a much stronger position than formerly. Especially will this result from the direction (the Bill does not say "may" but "shall") to the Court to include a compulsory unionism clause in awards when the union applies for it. Incidentally this provision is open to grave objection unless it is qualified by separating the ordinary funds of the union from those which may be devoted to political purposes. As the clause now stands, and with the existing practice, thousands of workers may be compelled to contribute to the funds of the Labour Party before they can obtain the right to work. This should not come from a party which in the past has had much to say about the funds of its opponents. Apart from, this aspect, however, the broad general effect of the provisions of the Bill relating to Dominion unions and awards, the formation of new nnions^and cqmpßteory r membership

is to place much greater power and much greater responsibility in the hands of the industrial organisations. Their responsibility will be to see that the power is used with moderation and in such a manner that industrial peace is maintained. If there is a disposition to exact from industry more than it can pay, to make the cost so great that the progress of industry is hampered, there will be plenty for a few; but the development essential for universal benefit will not take place.