The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 10. 1929. BETTER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 20151, 16 April 1929, Page 6

The Evening Star TUESDAY, APRIL 10. 1929. BETTER INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

As year after year passes since the Croat War it becomes more evident that important changes are taking place in the economic sphere. To what extent this is occurring in the contact ol Labour and Capital is surveyed in the bulletin just issued by the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce in conjunction with the economics department of Canterbury College. 'Professor Clay, the well-known Manchester economist, is ((noted as pointing out how throughout Europe much more dilMculty lias been experienced in the negotiation ol industrial agreements than in the days before the war. Owing to other larreaehing economic changes the original stable basis df wage rates has been dislocated or lost. There have been far greater possibilities of disagreement, wider limits of bargaining, and less chance of compromise. Yet this has also served to throw into clear focus the very great need of agreement, which has resulted in conferences such as those hold last year between representatives ol employers and Workers in Great Britain. Australia, and our own dominion. The truth is that in face of so much insecurity, instability, and uncertainty as have everywhere been experienced industry has been compelled to reorganise itself to produce more effectively, and one of the most important aspects of this reorganisation is the obtaining of better relations between the parties engaged in industry. Labour, too, has had to face new conditions and to accommodate itself to the failure of its traditional last line of defence—the general strike. One result lias been a very definite decline in industrial strife in Great Britain, as also in New Zealand. it appears, indeed, that organised Labour in the Homeland has changed its policy with the recognition of changed conditions. This is borne out by the conciliatory altitude of the Trades Union Congress to the Aloud Conference. A quotation is also given from a recent article in tho Manchester ‘ Guardian ’ by Mr Yi alter Citrine, the Trades Union Congress general secretary, suggest! ig that the approach to a new industrial order can only come by a planned reconstruction, not by way of a social explosion. He says the unions are most likely to consider as the way forward “ active participation in a concrete effort to raise industry to its highest efficiency by developing the most scientific methods of production, eliminating waste and harmful restrictions, removing causes oi. triction and avoidable conflict, and promoting the largest possible output, so as to provide a rising standard of life and continuously improving conditions of employment." And lie is attempting to speak for the five million workers ha represents. The bulletin goes on to show how the chief difficulties in industry to-day arc line largely to a decline in prices, which has necessitated a reduction ol costs; to change in markets, to which production must he adjusted; and to increased international competition. Wherever there are mistrust, suspicion, and conflict between organised employers and employees the improvement in organisation that is called for is sadly hampered. To-day is not a day of “ isms," whether it be Communism or Capitalism. Both employer and employee chiefly want better conditions and more security here and now. This will not be gained by quarrelling over their relative shares in the output, but by concentrating on increasing it. Both Labour and Capital are called upon, therefore, not to waste energy in defence against the other or attempts to smash each other. The day is past for the employer to obstinately declare; “ Kct a penny on the pay, not a minute, off the day;" also for the employee to

work for tbe breakdown of Capitalism. In the words of Mr J. Ramsay -MacDonald, the ideal must be “ industrial co-operation, .mutual confidence, f>nd enduring; goodwill.”

The question then arises: Does flic machinery wc have set tip lor collective bargaining lend itself towards achieving tin’s ideal? If not, how can it be altered to do so? The bulletin points out boiv recently' in Great Britain. Germany, and the United States changes have been brought about towards the organisation of such bodies as .shop committees or works councils, with representatives of both employers and workers. The functions of the larger organisations are thus limited to deciding broad issues, leaving more detailed and complex matters of demarcation ol functions and job arrangement in particular shops to be decided on the spot. It is considered that these methods should he investigated for use in New Zealand. Fur the bulletin considers that hero the parties in industry have been bound too closely to the Slate machinery provided for. negotiation, with its inevitable over-centralisation, ”By its dominion-wide regulation of the minutest details of industrial relations it has standardised and stereotyped industrial organisation where the greatest ilexibiljty and freedom arc needed to meet the varied and changing conditions of production.” ft is argued that local action would he much more otlentire. Jf a mini her of such matters could bo agreed upon awards would not bo necessary regarding these particulars, and no compulsion need be organised. Ultimately it is considered that tlic range of matters subject to voluntary agreement might be widened “ Until the present elaborate State machinery becomes,*for tbe major part of industrial relations at least, supcrlluous and unnecessary.” It is argued that industrial relations should be settled not as at present from above, but by negotiations from below, amongst the people directly concerned, who alone, it is asserted, are lamiliar with the real issues. This is undoubtedly tbe better way. But we wonder, it New Zealand industry' is yet ready to take upon itself the entire responsibility for its control and regulation.