The Hawera Star. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1929. ARBITRATION IN NEW ZEALAND.

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 15 October 1929, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1929. ARBITRATION IN NEW ZEALAND.

lelivered every evening by 6 o’elook in Ifawera, Manaia, Kaupokonui, Otakeho, Oeo, Pihama, Opunake, Normanby, Okaiawa. Eltham, Ngaere, Mangatoki, Kaponga. Awatuna, Te Kiri, Mahoe, Lowgarth, Manutahi, Kakaramea, Alton, Jlurleyville, Patea, Whenuakura, Waverley, Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, •Meremere, Fraser Road and Ararata

The president of tlie New Zealand Associated Chambers of Commerce has been speaking in Auckland on the arbitration system which operates in New Zealand, but, if the telegraphed summary of his address covers all his points, he has not had anything new to say on the subject. To be of value to-day, a speech on such a complex problem should contribute something fresh to the discussion. JE-airnest partisans, aixcl sincere students seeking a middle way, have been discussing the effects of arbitration on industry in this country for some years and the public is familiar with the arguments' so far adduced, but nowhere lias it heard propounded a. scheme which promises a. solution acceptable to everybody. It has been very fairly contended that arbitration and the trade union award system represents-, in some sections of industry ait least, a check upon progress. On the other hand, members of unions who. can remember those preunion days when payment was made at “market rates, ’ ’ free of any orders of the court, arc anxious that the benefits they have won shall not now be lost by any reversion to live old order. It is contributing nothing to the search for a solution to recommend, nis the president of the Associated Chambers did, an open labour market, where the low-grade worker and the high-grade artisan would e'ach receive commensurate remuneration, unless the question of the worker’s security is honestly faced. Mere assertions that the high-grade worker would benefit under arbitration-abolition will not make converts to that view; on the contrary, they do harm, for they are seized upon by trade unionists as an indication that, members of chambers of commerce, as a class, are “out to exploit labour” and do all those other horrible things which labour advocates and agitators love to fasten upon those they deem to represent the “capitalistic class.” It will be remembered that the Reform Government, in its last year in office, called a conference of employers’ and workers’ representatives, economists and others to discuss the subject of arbitration generally. That conference did not succeed in arriving at findings acceptable to cither side, but

(it did good inasmuch as it introduced at least sumo employers and employees to the problems each 'have to face in their respective spheres. The workers ’ main fear was loss of that, security which they have under the court through the fixation of hours, wages and conditions. The employer was able to make it clear that a court which based wages on the cost of living and not upon the worker r s value to the job from which he drew his wages could, in time, become so crippling that industry would become unattractive from am investing point of view. Of course (the Socialist’s answer to that is, “let us do away with, investors (who are capitalists) and run industry for the workers. ’ ’ That solution is as impracticable at present as the suggestion that arbitration should be abolished, trade unions disbanded, and industrial awards torn up. The position; that some sections of industry—mot. all—are in is that they are being ham-strung by (the restrictions and demands of unionism. They could prosper and develop, and thus afford to employ more men and pay better wages were they freed of the fetters of awards. The unionist who is also a first-class tradesman fears that he would not get the full measure of reward for his labour, despite the glowing prospects painted by economists, and [the low-grade worker knows that he would not, with the result that the two sections cling tenaciously to the arbitration system. There is no doubt that this system has lifted some workers out of the ranks of sweated labour, but can it keep them out and at the same time meet the rising costs of the increasing siandaa-d of comfort? It is a mighty problem and though we are still muddling along on the cost of living basis for the fixation of minimum wages, a time of reckoning must come if labour and capital between them cannot find a way out. When wages go up to meet the rising cost of living, C.O.L. again rises, for the cost has to be passed on to the consumer-—who is the wage-earner. In Australia the Commonwealth Government has been thrown out of office because it insisted that the workers should look This- arbitration I problem full in the face. The Commonwealth ha-s a now government, but it does not follow that the workers' are going to be able to have their cake and eat It too. In New Zealand the problem is not yet so acute, but it can be prevented from developing only by a continuous search for a way out. It is a matter for regret that the present Government did not deem a continuation of the Industrial Conference worth while