Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, January 2, 1935. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

Grey River Argus, 2 January 1935, Page 4

Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, January 2, 1935. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.

A good ease for restoring industrial arbitration in New Zealand is now being stated. Otago unions took the first, step, asking the Prime Minister to note how employei’s in many instances have resorteefi both to sweating and unfair competition. The woollen factory workers generally have since backed up the request, pointing out that while the Employers’ Federation. has asserted industry could nok stand the restoration of the vVtge cuts, there have been handsome dividends paid to the shareholders of woollen mills which have -been work-

ing only part time. Surely, the employers might allow the Court to examine their contention regarding the cuts? Formerly they acknowledged that compulsory

arbitration preserved industrial peace and goodwill. When unemployment developed, and competition for jobs increased, the employers rendereel the Act a dead letter. They induced the Government to amend it, doing away with compulsion, and since then arbitration has been only a farce. The employers, with scarcely an exception, have refused to allow the Court to adjudicate. There remains no inducement for them to be conciliatory, because they can enforce their own terms, and thus they refuse even to bargain. The control of machinery and means of production renders employers far stronger in economic power than the workers, and therefore they apply economic pressure instead of negotiation. The State, however, as a party to the settlement of disputes, is bound to act as referee, and it is not so acting when it leaves one party to please itself every time. The strong are actually being encouraged under the pre sent conditions to plunder the weak, and it is no wonder that there is sweating and under-cut ting and unfair competition There are instances of the utter unfairness of the alleged conciliation system operating. It began

with wage-cutting, and the growth of machine production has paved the way for other forms of exploitation. The Government de nied these things would follow, and now says it wants instances of unfair practices.' It knows well that the worst type of employer now sets standards, as he has absolute freedom of action. Shop workers, female workers, elderly and juvenile workers have come under sinister influences since arbitration was thrown over- | board for reasons which Ministers have never fully explained and certainly never vindicated. Mr Forbes's only argument so far has been that an employer should have absolute freedom in making his business pay, but that formula would 'countenance slavery. As already Remarked, the Court could lie trusted to be fair, and indeed more than fair, to employers. so that there is no excuse for the refusal ti allow it a heal voice in fixing! wages. "Why should married men work full time for a dole wage ’ Why should youths be displacing adults to the great extent that they are now doing? Employers have a duty to customers as well as. to the country. They obtain tariff ami other protection. but it will be reasonable to cut out all such protection if the workers are to have no consideration. The Government is meantime hedging on the question, but organised labour must take a determined and united stand to have the 1932 amendments to the Act repealed.