WORK AND WAGES.

Evening Star, Issue 12208, 28 May 1904, Page 5

WORK AND WAGES.

REPLY TO THE LABOR PARTY'S MANIFESTO. The New Zealand Employers' Associa ticn >y.ivi issued a manifesto on the subject of the Labor party's piogramme dratted jit tlw C'hristchureh Conference at Easter, 'the chief features are:— Workers' Compensation Act.—The Labor party d:mand luii pay from the time of accident at' the current rate of wages ruling in the district, to be the basis of payment, maximum sum recoverable to be increased from £ooo to £6OO, and the Government Insurance Department to provide for risks dt-dit'cd by other companies. To this the employers reply: As the law at present status, no injured worker can claim payment for the first week unless his disablement continues longer than a fortnight, and half-pay' only is allowed, payment being based on his own average earnings for th'-j twelve months prior to the accident. These and other provisions in the Act have already made insurance rates a huavy burden on the employer, but what , would the rates be if the above proposals were- adopted'' They would most assuredly be at least trebled. Can the employer afford to pay this? Conciliation and Arbitration Act.—The Labor party demand : (a) Compulsory preference, to unionists; (b) amendment of section 1 of clause 98, by which a majority of the votes of members of the union pre-' sent at the meeting (instead of, as at present, a majority of votes of all members of the union) will entitle the union to file ;i reierencv to the Board ; (c) the repealing of clause 99, which requires that notice of a proposal to tile a reference shall be posted to all members before a special meeting is held to consider it; (d) chairmen of Conciliation Boards or stipendiary magistrates to have power to award costs in " detail disputes" ; (e) industrial agreements to extend to everv employer in the same industry in the district. In reply the Federation say : (a) The absurdity of Uie ciaiin of unionists to preference of employment was pointed out some time ago i.'V the Federation, and Parliament last session negatived the proposal by 45 votes to 21. No valid reason has since been urged against leaving the granting of preference entirely in the hands of the Arbitration Courr. (b) and (c) These would give a small section of the union the power to decide whether a dispute should be filed, and without b'ing obliged to give each member notice of proposed removal of the present necessary safeguards against improper advantage being taken of the Act, and must be strenuously opposed, (d) It is not quite dear what is meant by "detail disputes." but- employers find that costs are heavy enough at present, and they have small reason to hope that matters would be improved if power to award costs wero conferred upon either the chairmen of the Conciliation Boards or stipendiary magistrates, (e) This would ennbie the union to get ono or two employers to sign an agreement which would bind all other employers interest.d, unless the latter were smart enough to lodge an objection within six weeks. This would be serious enough if confined to a city, bat it would bo simply intolerable if it extended throughout an industrial district. Workmen's Wagfs Act.—The Labor party demand that unions shall have power to suo for wages of workmen, a demand which l be Federation ray is evidently intended as a step in the direction of increasing the power of unions. Another of the Labor party's demands is equal pay for male and female labor, which the Federation say would cause many females to be deprived of certain kinds of emplo--—ent and greatly ipaease the cost of running many businesses. With' regard to the Labor party's demands for the stamping of colonial goods and the union label system, the manifesto remarks that "the object of these proposals appears to be to make unionism compulsory, arid to provide a means of boy<ott "etc. The proposal wo-idd at any rate be likely to give labor unions a dominancy which would be undesirable.