WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12570, 3 August 1901, Page 5

WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS.

, TO THE EDITOR. Sir —I have read very carefully the address of A. Frostick, President of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, and, with your permission, would me to make a. few remarks with i-ogarl to''it. There can be'no question, I thinks but'tnat the whole, address is an invidiot* attempt to damn, and unfairly so, flic labour ,legislation which has been passed for the amelioration of the workers in the industries of the colony. More particularly does he attempt, to discredit (the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to which is ascribed all kinds of exaggerated dangers ; in fact, the industrial life oi the colony is, if Air Eros tick can be taken seriously, in jeopardy. And he says that "the past year lias been . one of grave anxiety to many employers.” Why, Iventur to* assert that the past year has been, a very prosperous one in the majority of .our industries. ■ • . . . . , What Mr Frostick and those with hm want is to „be able to use the necessities of the poor for their own benefit, and to see the time’?when the capitalist and his money is everything, and humanity is of m considertCtion. The reference to economic laws and the comparisons, drawn were clearly shown as absurd in your leader dealing with the address, and I agree with you,that “the , object of the workers m seeking the assistance of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act is to have their proportion of the earnings of industry fixed by competent assessors,” and I submit that at present labour disputes in . ibis colony are settled in a- constitutional and sensible manner, not as in America (whose methods Mr Frostick apparently would like to copy) by strikes, where, as appears in your issue of to-day, 65,000 men. are- on strike in San Francisco,. paralysing the business and causing tremendous losses to- both parties tend to the country., Would Mr Frostick prefer their method of,settling disputes to curs? A reference is made to the sense of justice of the workers. Will anyone contend that the workers have received justice in the past, when we find millionaires bn the one'hand and pauperism on the-other? I admit that ionic employers do treat their workers fairly, but they are all too few. After what can only bo termed a dismal dirce, the speaker had to give some reason why the industries of New Zealand were not as extinct as- the mca, and he -:s reported as having said that “it is the sheep and the cow ” which have brought prosperity to this country, and I agree that perhaps no section of the community have done better of late years than the- sheepfarmers, and I ask, why cannot that prosperity be shared by those workers without whom the exportation of o-ur frozen meat would ho impossible? , , ' And that* brings me to the cost of Living as affected by the rise in wages, which was such a strong point of the address. Wftil& it is admitted that wages do affect cost of living, it is only in an infinitesimal degree as compared to- the effect of trusts, combinations, syndicates, etc. - of employers. Take, for' instance, meat, which is getting dearer and dearer, and not owing to any rise in wages, houei having taken place, but to a syndicate controlling supply, and who are at present engaged in starving out the flhall price of which is kept up'by a private monopoly. Timber, also; is dear from the same'cause; and New Zealand timber, I understand, can bo bought cheaper in Australia than here. , Numerous other instances could be cited, showing that the retail price of an article does not always, depend upon cost, bub is largely determined by various other • causes, not the least being the percentage of profit placed upon it, ranging from, say, 25 per cent up to, in isolated cases, iiS high as ,200 per cent. And I venture to say that in many instances the wages of distribution exceed the wages of production and yet Mr Frostick is unfairly endeavouring to persuade the public that the wages of production are the primary factor ini determining the retail price of an article. Then, with reference to- Conciliation Boards/ Nobody can conciliate when one Section almost invariably take up a stiffnecked attitude, a s the Employers Association ii.s dene lately, and agree to nothing, unless compelled to do so by the awards of the Court. The opportunity to conciliate is provided, and I do not think matters would be improved if Mr Frostick’s very cumbersome, and, to my mind, utterly unworkable suggestion of a board of fortyeight members, were adopted. It would I be 1 sun only make-confusion worse confounded ; and ‘it is certainly utterly ridiculous to' imagine that it is necessary for a man to know how to make a, boot before he can assess a reasonable wage for a .bootmaker. And, further, the objection,raised against the non-expert character of the present Boards applies with greater force tb* the Arbitration Court, who have the' power of enforcing their decisions. But the fact is, that the objection is simply a-means of attack upon the principle of the measure, and au attempt to weaken the political influence of the Labour organisations, who

are endeavouring to obtain for the workers • fair and reasonable payment for their work, not, as Mr Frostick unjustly states, “endeavouring to extract from employers' payment.iu excess of the value which labtmr gives.” Why,; if they only received onehalf the value' given to commodities by their labour, many would receive consider ably more than at present. , A few. months back, during the hearing of the bootmakers’ dispute before the Arbitration Court, Mr Frostick referred to the. amicable relations existing between the employers and employees, or words to that effect; which remark 1 .read 'with’pleasure. But now, what a change! He flings broadcast The assertion that the Labour Unionists are greedy and unscrupulous, and , | much regret that he has departed irom that reasonableness which should be the characteristic of a gentleman occupying .the position of President of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, and descended ’to abuse. —I am, etc., ' W. NEWTON, August 1, 1801.