LABOR AND THE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 19329, 16 August 1926, Page 2

LABOR AND THE COURT.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir, —Yon are to be •congratulated on your two recent leading articles, in which you draw the attention of the general public to the attitude _ being adopted by official Labor, both in and out of Parliament. At the May, 1925, sitting of the Arbitration Court I made a statement against those who were then, as now, crying; out: “Away with the court! Away with Judge Frazer!” At that time I had been a trade union secretary for barely four months. Since then I have appeared before Judge Frazer at last half a dozen times on behalf of the unions with which I have been connected, and also on behalf of members of the Small Shopkeepers’ Association, and I can honestly say that, so far as the laws governing the Arbitration Court permitted, 1 found Judge Frazer a man who was ready and willing at all time to give both sides a fair hearing. In fact, he has gone further on many occasions, by giving advice first to one side and then to the other in disputes as to the best methods to be adopted to assist in carrying on the court’s work, so that every possible point in a case could be brought out and without any restnetion on tbo Press as to what should be published. In this way, I contend, Judge Frazer could not have been fairer. In fact, if our present workers representative (Mr Monteith) was as anxious to see disputes settled in a fair and reasonable manner as Judge Frazer has been the workers would olten get better conditions than, they do. bo much for Judge Frazer. As regards the court itself ana the legislation. governing it, from actual experience during the past two years oi union secretarial work 1 do not hesitate to say that without such legislation as tb© I.C. and A. Act and the court as the machinery for its operation the workers in New Zealand would not be receiving anything like .the hours, wages, and worlcing conditions that they do to-day. It is true that things are capable of considerable improvement, but Messrs Roberts (Wellington), Robinson (Dunedin), and H. E. Holland and his party will do no good for our workers by persisting in their present attitude against the court and its judge. Would it not bo more sensible for our so-called Labor leaders to be less petty-minded P By looking ahead a little they should be able to sec, as many rank and file workers can see, that we must have such legislation; otherwise our trade unions will soon bo a thing of the past.- I am, otc ,, G. S. Thomson. August 14.

TO THE EDITOR. Sit —My Six objections to the Arbitration Court’s ruling on the basic wage have not, as you say, “ been well threshed out,” for so far they have merely been stated by me and ignored by yon. You have not attempted to deal with them at all; you “cut them dead,” so to speak, and in your anxiety to evade them you step oil the sidewalk to lose yourself in a veritable wilderness of distorted economics. The objections remain, however, a black smudge upon the reputation of the Arbitration Court as an impartial wages tribunal. In my previous letter I said that under the present system of wage-fix-ing production was not an issue either for us or for the court—an expression of opinion which you say amounts to a denial of obligation on the part of employees to give the output equivalent to wages. As you hold that the court’s refusal to increase the basic wage was due to a falling off in the volume of production you hereby accuse the wageearners of New Zealand of being a pack of systematic loafers. _ You assume that decreased production (if it has taken place, which 1 doubt very much) must be due to decreased effort on the part of the workers; whereas the fact is the workers exorcise no control over production at all. The employer is the responsible party, for ho directs the efforts of his employees, provides the tools and machinery, sells the produce, and keeps the profits. fJc regards tho workers as that part of Jus plant which he hires from hour to hoar as occasion demands. To say that no is the victim of idlers is nonsense, for he has the power to sack any man in his service at an hour's notice. _ The argument for reducing the minimum rate to make it correspond with the capabilities of'the inefficient or indolent workman is frequently encountered in the Conciliation Council, employers contendin'; that while they are willing to pay a Jicallby rate to suitable men, they object to the obligation which binds them to pay the same rate to inefficient men. In short, they ask that tho wages of all workers be reduced in conformity with tho earning power of the comparatively few men who are already provided for in over/ award under the classification of under-

rate workers. When I said production was not an issue either for us or for the court I was not considering the question of tho indolent worker, ior the employer already has the fewer and the right to deal with that question himself without reference to tho court. The court would be justified in considering production as a factor in determining the basic wage only if ihe workers had a share in the control and direction of production, in wnicn case they would bo partly responsible lor the result. As the court says it cannot consider profits and unemployment as an argument for increasing wages, we contend that it cannot fairly consider losses and decreased production as an argument for reducing them. We do not admit that production has decreased, for the employers submitted no evidence of this to the court; and the fact that a considerable number of employing bodies have this year agreed to pay a minimum of Is lid per hour shows that they at least have no fears for the future. It also creates the suspicion that they are not amenable to tho rigid discipline of tho Employers’ Federation. , Your reference to tho methods of Henry Ford will not be received with much enthusiasm by employers generally. In a recent dispute I bad occasion to refer to those methods myself, and was told by a self-satisfied employers’ representative that Henry “cut no ico” with New Zealand employers, who did not believe in running their businesses on Yankee lines.—l am, etc., J- Robinson. August 16.