THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 21878, 15 November 1934, Page 15

THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

[By J.S.S.]

Brief contributions on milters with refer fines to the Labour movement are invited OPTIONAL AIIBITUATION CONDEMNED. Optional arbitration has proved such a ghastly failure as a means of settling industrial disputes that many of those who approved of the idea in 1932 would be pleased to see the old compulsory system restored,” stated the new president of the Otago Trades and Labour Council (Mr P. Neilson) to the writer of this column. Mr Neilsou contended that when the plan of optional arbitration was first introduced the only object it was intended to serve was to placate the farmers’ unions, and even its sponsor (Mr T. O. Bishop, secretary of the Employers' Federation) disclosed its fatal flaw when presenting it to the National Industrial Conference of 1928. “ In 1927,” Mr Neilson continued, “ a fierce dispute raged throughout New Zealand between the primary producers on the one hand and the Employers’ Federation on the other. The farmers’ unions had adopted a belligerent attitude towards employers in the secondary industries, accusing the latter of lightly agreeing in Conciliation Councils to give their workers increases in wages, which were added to the selling price of the goods and passed on from one to another until they reached the primary producer, who could not pass then! on to anyone else. To remove the alleged disabilities they demanded in no uncertain tones the repeal of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Employers’ Federation opposed them strenuously. Both sides released upon the Government an avalanche of machine-made resolutions, and so fierce was the onslaught that the then Minister of Labour (Hon. J. A. Anderson) produced an amending Bill that was intended to' please everybody, but actually pleased nobody, if we except the Minister himself. So much opposition was shown to the measure that it was pigeon-holed after its first reading, and the Prime Minister summoned a National Industrial Conference to be representative of employers in the primary and secondary industries and specified workers’ organisations.”

Mr Neilson proceeded to say that during the first days of the conference it was apparent to everyone that representatives of the primary producers’ organisations and those of the secondary industry employers were at daggers drawn, and as* it was seen that the relations between, the two bodies were too strained to permit of a conference being carried out successfully,'it was decided to adjourn the conference for a few days in the hope .that during the recess they would discover some basis of agreement that would permit the conference to obtain fruitful results. When conference resumed Mr Bishop introduced his proposed system of optional arbitration as a substitute for the compulsory' system that bad been in operation in New Zealand for over thirty years. He commenced by dealing exhaustively with the many benefits which the compulsory arbitration system had bestowed upon New Zealand, and by way of comparison he proceeded to describe the unhappy conditions that obtained in England during the same period. “ I can do no better,” continued Mr Neilson. “ than to quote Mr Bishop’s own words. He said: l lt must be noted that while prices were rising and the court was in a position to adjust wages upwards, there were no strikes. That was only natural and to be expected. It does not, however, indicate that the same result would have been obtained without an arbitration system. The industrial history of England during the last thirty years gives the lie direct to that statement.

. . . Taking the first period—lß94 to 1906—prices were rising during the early part of the period just as they were in New Zealand. .It is admitted now that wages had to be increased there just as they had to be increased here; but there the resemblance ends. While we in New Zealand had twelve years of industrial peace, the same period in England, particularly in the years 1894 to 1900, was one of intensely bitter industrial strife; Practically every advance made by the workers was secured as a result of costly, wasteful fighting; and, further, the bitterness of the fighting was accentuated by the refusal of the employers’ organisations to recognise the trade unions or to meet the men’s official representatives. The fight for recognition was ended only with the passing of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906, twelve years after the same result had been secured in New Zealand by the passing of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It must lie noted also that in 1896 the English Parliament had passed the Conciliation Act, or “ an Act to make better provision for the settlement of trade disputes.” Of this Act Lord Askwith writes: “The Act was practically permissive in its terms. . . . Any sue-

cess likely to occur under this Act depended entirely on the acceptance of both parties of any aid which an inquiry might give, but it gave no power, without agreement of both sides, to get one side or the other to accept any suggestions made by a conciliator.” The number of strikes which have occurred in England since this Act was framed should be an object lesson to those who in Now Zealand are urgintc that some entirely optional system of conciliation should be substituted for our present system of combined conciliation and arbitration.

“ When question time came,” resumed Mr Neilson, “ Mr Bishop was asked how lie expected an optional system to succeed here when, as lie had shown, it had failed so miserably in England. ■ Mr Bishop evaded the question by saying that he did not believe in optional conciliation; he believed in compulsory conciliation and optional arbitration, In other words, he agreed that the lior.se should be brought to the water. He believed in giving unions the power to bring employers to Conciliation Councils, but if they behaved unreasonably there (and usually they did) he was opposed to the matter being taken further. What difference, then, was there between the present New Zealand Act and the English Act that had failed? The optional system was established in New Zealand in 1932, and since then over 100 awards have been cancelled because the parties could not agree and the employers’ representatives would not consent to refer the dispute to the Arbitration Court for settlement. Whatever chance the now system had of succeeding was killed by the employers in Conciliation Councils, where they would neither agree to meet their workers fairly nor permit file dispute to be referred fa the court for settlement. This was Ml a matter of set policy. The ,shell of die arbitration system was to be re; d:;ed. but the kernel was to bo removed, lit this connection it may bo recalled that what has hap-

nencd is Unit tlie Government Ims earlied into effect the prophecy which wnmnrlc by the ‘ Financial Times ’ Hi its issue For October, 193). In Hint issue ilu paper said; ‘To meet tliis position the Government proposes to go straight to the heart of the difficulty by abolishing compulsory arbitration. To sugar tlie pill the change is represented as an “ amendment ” of the Arbitration Act, but economically and practically it means its abolition.’ ” , Mr Neilson concluded by saying that is this system had failed in England, so also had it failed in Now Zealand. It failed in England because the employer was made a law niito himself, and R failed in New Zealand For the self-same reason. It was hoped that the Government would take steps to restore the compulsory provisions during the next session of Parliament, and the Otago Labour Council had already given an undertaking to the local unions that it would use its voice and influence to attain this end.

* * * * HEX TLLLETT HONOURED. Mr Ben Tillelt celebrated his seventyfourth birthday recently, when a dinner was given to him at the National Trade Union Club, London. Mr Lloyd George sent a letter in which he stated: “I have known Mr Tillelt for well over thirty years. During the Boer War he and I stood together in an unpopular cause fighting what was then a fight in the teeth of a public opinion which was overwhelmingly hostile. 1 realised then his cheerful courage and his great oratorical gifts. As a Minister I took part in negotiations which he was conducting on behalf of the men he represented, and I always admired the skill of his advocacy.” Lord Olivier telegraphed; “Stick it. Ben, another six years, and jmu will be old enough for a Labour Cabinet.” Mr George Lansbury in a letter said: “Ho has been a bonny fighter, and retains all his old love for the people.” Replying to the toast of his health. Mr Tillett gave reminiscences of his varied career, including that of a circus lad. a tramp, a brickyard worker, a gipsy, a sailor, a docker, and ultimately a trade union official. Mr Tillctt said that he had seen the so-called unskilled workers grow in power, organisation, and confidence until now they had nothing to, be ashamed of, and were no longer regarded as among the submerged tenth. ♦ * ♦ » CONDITIONS IN LANCASHIRE. Mr James Purtcll, Auckland, union secretary, recently returned from, an eight months’ visit to Lancashire, his birthplace, •which he had left twentyfive years ago. While in England he made a point of visiting all the Trades Halls and Labour Party offices that he could come in contact with. He mixed freely with the workers around his native Lancashire. His view of the position after twenty-five years’ absence is that the standard of living ot the people in the northern counties Has improved in spite of depression and unemployment. Lancashire can never regain her place in the export trade, owing to the industrialisation of other countries and the competition of cheap cotton goods from Japan. To give some idea of the difference in conditions that prevailed prior to the war and the present time, in quite a number of districts weavers in pre-war days would not earn move than 25s per week, and rents would range from 2s, 6d to 5s per woelc, for the average worker’s home. Rents now range from 10s 6d to 17s Cd per week, and houses that formerly rented at 3s 6d per week are now 10s 6d. Unemployment has undermined the morale of the industrial movement, as the average worker naturally gets dissatisfied and too ready to blame trade union officials for the economic circumstances now prevailing. Mr Purtcll found that unions are more inclined to run sick and benefit sections than is the, case in the dominion, and as a consequence, contributions range from Is Gd to 2s 6d per week. Unemployed are treated more generously than here, and it is possible for a worker with no dependents to draw 17s per week. In cases where a wife has been working she would be entitled to draw 15s per week. Children under the age of fourteen are allowed 2s for each child. Where a wife is not working a husband is entitled to draw an allowance of 9s; thus a man, his wife and two children would receive a total amount of 50s per week. The higher standard of living which prevailed during the war period has left its effects in the shape of a demand for a continuance of this standard. There are quite a number of workers who own motor cars, which would not have been possible years ago; but, then, motor cars are cheap in England, used cars especially. More holidays are taken, the bus service lending Itself to cheap means of transit. * * * * REST HOUSES FOR WORKERS. The suggestion that country mansions which are proving too expensive for their owners to keep up might be converted into rest houses and sanatoria for the workers, was made by Sir Leonard Hill, in his presidential address at the Sanitary Inspectors’ Association Conference at Southport recently. He also expressed the view that the panel system should be replaced by one in which all medical officers paid by the State were attached to hospitals, clinics, and dispensaries. The poor law infirmaries, now becoming county council hospitals,, extended the opportunities of such a service. Sir Leonard, speaking of the Compensation, Health, and Unemployment Insurance Acts, said that regarding sickness benefit it was noteworthy that an undue proportion of sicknesses ended on a Saturday, and an undue proportion began on a Monday. In some 80 per cent, of the troubles which led patients to consult their panel doctors there was nothing serious the matter. A little encouragement aiid Nature would put things right—a bottle of medicine played its part, and faithhealing did the rest. But serious crises might be missed. “ The panel doctor waits for the sick to come to him. He cannot go into the factories and order a holiday for those who need it, or make changes in conditions which will lead to the prevention of disease,” he said. Sir Leonard said it cost the mining industry about £1,000,000 a year to compensate miners who had developed nystagmus.

The decisions of the law courts in regard to certain cases of sudden death under the Workers’ Compensation Acts, said Sir Leonard, were hampering tens of thousands of men and women from obtaining employment. “If a man with, say, an aneurism has just been taken into employment and drops dead while making some small exertion, compensation will have to be paid on his death as if caused by his employment.” The medical man knew that an aneurism which had been growing in size for years might burst at any moment and that the man’s death had really nothing to do with his employment. Nevertheless, such was the decision of the court. Tt had led to the institution of medical examination by most large employers of labour before engagement, and the rejected applicants did not get any protection under the Act, as they could not secure employment.