Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 9168, 30 July 1890, Page 4

In the course of his address to the Dunedin Chamber of Commerce on Friday last, Mr Ritchie, the Chairman, touched ou the labour question, and we are bound to admit there is a great deal of truth in his remarks. He hinted that the growing, and in some few cases aggressive, power of the Unions has a tendency to frighten enterprise and retard its development. Whilst recognising that the Unions secure undoubted benefits to tho workers, though there may be some “pinching” whilst tho work of organising is going on, and difficult positions are sure to be developed, he nevertheless pointed out an undoubted danger to the workers themselves. He said : “It can be nothing less than suicidal for the Unions to frighten capital and enterprise, to exceed what is reasonable in their demands, to force matters instead of winning their points by reasonableness and patience.” With the first two points, viz., frightening capital and enterprise by unreasonable demands, we cordially agree. That the Unions have not done, so far. The last one, urging the Unions to accept that lot in life Providence has assigned them, and wait till capital is “won over by reasonableness and patience,” is, begging Mr Ritchie’s pardon, asking the Unions to take stones for bread. There are some isolated cases of Capital voluntarily surrendering a share of its undue profits to tho workers, but they are few and far between. Patience has had its perfect work, so far as the labouring classes are concerned. If masters will not accept what is reasonable in the demands of the Unions they mnst stand tho consequences. But there is much to commend in Mr Ritchie’s farther suggestion. He states his belief that, for the good of all concerned, to prevent strikes and to lead towards amicable adjustments by arbitration, a similar organisation is necessary among employers, in order that both may meet ou equal terms, and it may be rendered possible to discuss and settle disputes without resorting to arbitrary measures on either side. This is being increasingly followed out, and it is one of the happiest signs of the times that the combination of the masters is being rendered necessary by the combination of the men. It comes in this way. The workers in a particular trade, printing for example, combine to demand higher wages and the limitation of apprentices and cheap labour. It is manifest the masters must either pay the increase, and accept the other conditions, or suffer a strike. They iu turn organise themselves into a combination, and fix a scale of prices under which they are able to pay the men the increase they demand, and this increase ultimately comes from the public. In such a case every reputable house accepts the scale and works under it, whilst any establishment which broke away from the recognised prices would naturally incur the odium of compelling all the other offices to lower their wages in order to compete. Thus by combination of the masters the reasonable demands of the men are acceded to. The curse of the age is undue competition. This can alone be prevented by combination amongst masters. Directly masters agree to work on a uniform scale of prices, and allow the competition to be in quality of workmanship and courtesy to the customer, rather than in price, the better it will be, not only for workers, but for employers also. We see the same idea in other trades. The working bakers have obtained better terms from their masters than of old, but the public pay by the price of bread being raised. Other instances of the value of combination amongst masters could be given, but are unnecessary. It is most desirable this idea of combination amongst masters should be ventilated and encouraged.