INDUSTRIAL LAWS

Grey River Argus, 9 May 1936, Page 4

INDUSTRIAL LAWS

The New Measures 'The ‘‘Workers’ Weekly” is doubtful both of the attitude of the Opposition and the Government to industrial legislation. It says: “If the intention was to pinjirick the employers. then New Zealand was going to have industrial strife such as it had never seen before.” These were the words of IV. J. Polson. Coates-Forbes supporter for Stratford, during the debate on the Labour Department Amendment 'Bill on April 24th.

There could be no clearer indication of the intention of the employers to continue to defy labour laws of New Zealand. Heated words took place throughout the debate on the Bill, which provides fur the reorganisation of the Labour Department, with a view to increased and improved factory inspection. -Mr. Savage (Prime Minister) asserted that the administration of the labour laws had been a farce for many years and that the Coates-Forbes Government had [irevented prosecutions of employers. This got under the skin of the reactionaries. culminating in Mr. Polson’s outburst. One question looms big. The employers are threatening to fight the Government. Yet the Govern ment is still leg-ironing its own supporters by retaining the penal clauses on the right to strike in the Arbitration Act.

'Die most significant feature of the long debates on the Arbitration Amendment Bill is that the reactionaries are afraid not so much of the reintroduction of compulsory arbitra tion, as of the possibility of the willing class defying arbitration and resorting to direct action in defence of its living standards. -Mr. Hamilton, ex-Minister for Labour, who led the Opposition attack, expressed this clearly in his opening words: “They were not going back to real arbitration, which the opposition would support, and he was of opinion that before long some unions would be defying the Court,” (22/4/3G). Later Mr. Polson claims: “'When the Court disappointed the unions, ’iritation tactics and strikes occurred. The Secretary of the Cooks and Stewards Union (Mr. E. Kennedy) had informed the Labour Bills Committee that if the awards did not suit the unions, then the awards would be disregarded.” (22/4/36). And again Air. Dickie (CoatesForbes supporter for Patea): “The Judge of the Court was frequently in the position of having to grant increases or being responsible for an industrial upheaval,” (23/4/36).

Isn’t it obvious what the reactionaries are frightened of? The Labour Government must give the working class the right to strike. Striking similarity exists between Roosevelt’s famous “codes” for industry and the proposals made by Air. Sullivan, Alinistcr of Industries and Commerce for an Industry Establishment and Efficiency Bill in an interview on April 23rd. Power will be given to the Alinister to license both existing industries as well as new ones.

Other important points are: 'The development of capitalist industry by means of subsidies or increased tariffs. The Bill will “enable funds to be made available under the Employment Promotion Act for the development of industry and the employment of labour.”

The rationalisation of capitalist industry, efficiency plans, etc. This inevitably involves the crushing out of small backward capitalist concerns in the interests of the larger groups, increased mechanisation (with the consequent putting-off of workers at present employed). Tn short, Mr. Sullivan has a scheme for making capitalist industry ('unction more effectively. He dignifies it with Hie Maine of “planning.”