W.E.A.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 July 1924, Page 15

W.E.A.

“INDUSTRIAL PEACE.” The problem of Industrial Peace” was the subject of the lecture at last weeks meeting of the flaw-era W.E.A. Uass. '[ pe development 01. industrial society since the industrial revolution, •said tne lecturer (Mr AY. A. Sheat) had ueen accompanied by a widening of the gap between employer and emploved, h hich brought with it a constant risk of industrial conflict. Many economists looked upon industrial unrest as inherent in the present organisation °| mdustry. Mr R. H. Towney, one best known of the younger -.nghsh economists, had made raanv striking observations upon the. matter. He had stated that '‘the idea, that industrial peace can be secured merely by the exercise of tact and forbearance is based upon the idea that there is a fundamental identity of interests between the groups engaged in it, which is occasionally interrupted bv regrettable misunderstandings. But the disputes which matter are not caused by a. misunderstanding of identity of interests, but by a better understanding of diversity of interests. While it remained true that all parties engaged in industry had a large measure of common interests, it was also true that these common interests were in fact overshadowed by the more immediate interests of the parties in respect of which there existed a diversity. The relative incomes of the different groups were, in the' absence of State intervention, settled by the method of mutual self-assertion. Self-interest might cause the parties to refrain from using their full strength to enforce their claims, in so far as this happened, peace was secured in industry as it had been sought to secure it in international affairs by a xind of “balance of power.” The maintenance of such a peace depended upon the estimate of the parties to it that they had riiore to lose than to gain by an open struggle, and was not based upon their acceptance of anj' standard of remuneration as a hnal settlement of the claims. Such a phase was precarious, insincere and shore. New Zealand industrial legislation was based upon a recognition of the facts that disputes were bound to occur, anti that the parties were bound to organise to settle their differences. Ihe problem of industrial peace was the problem / of preventing this opposition of interests from developing into open hostility, the general aim being to provide- for, the settlement of .industrial disputes -on the basis and in the light of procedure and principles more or less definitely agreed upon in advance of the specificdispute to. which they were applied. In Britain reliance was placed mainly on conciliation as a method of securing industrial peace, very elaborate conciliation systems existing in the larger industries with a long tradition of success and mutual respect lying behind them. .In New Zealand compulsory conciliation and arbitration was the method in force. The defect of most machinery for securing industrial peace was that aimed at secuirng industrial pence without defining social justice. All that could be hoped from such schemes was temporally industrial peace, usually based upon a compromise between demands purposely made exclusive by both sides. These schemes in general dealt with symptoms rather than with causes, and thc-ugh generally effective in n favourable economic situation, usually broke down When general conditions" becameless favourable. The popular explanation of industrial unrest as due'mainly to the evil intentions of a few unreasonable individuals was inadequate. The ,renl causes must be sought much deeper in the structure of the industrial system, '