CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVIII, Issue 12910, 2 September 1902, Page 6

CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.

THE TRADES COUNCIL IN REPLY. TO THB EDITOB. Sir, —The address of the President of the above Association; and the remarks of Mr J. A. Frostick, as reported in' the Press, call for a reply from the Labour Party. Would it not be more in. keeping with Mr Booth's aspirations for him to encourage Ms class, viz., employers, to mete out justice to the workers? There -would not then be any necessity for the labour legislation which, he makes so much of, and which he terms a new weapon, put to destructive uses. We presume he refers to the Arbitration Act, and to use his own words, "on© of the results has been a disruption happily not quite oomplete as yet," of what he believed to be " the natural and proper relation between master and workman—to wit, an alliance on. anutually agreed terms, for mutual advantage."

This, on the face of it, is most philosophical, and something to be desired. Wheal, where and how oom only be answered by Mr Booth. He speaks of the natural and proper relations on mutually agreed terms: When has this state existed? So far as workers are concerned, never. May we go so fax as to ask Mr Booth, is it not a fact beyond doubt, that the mutual advantage has always been, and is at present, on the employers' side, who take advantage of the worker, no matter what the result, of such action? Be ha single or married, with on© or ten children, the one object of the employer is to get out of the worker the best effort, and, in return', to give him as little as possible of the wealth his labour has created, unless the worker has one of two advantages in his possesssion—either that there is a scaroity of his labour, or, that he has the power of his Union at his back.' Therefore, can anyone be surprised at men deciding to unite to try and secure a living wage, not by the old barbarous method of strikes (which seems to be desired by Mr Booth) but by the more humane modem system as provided by the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act?

Mr Booth further states that wages and oonditions of labour were determined by the ' interplay of forces and. conditions entirely beyond the power of any Association of workers or employers, or any Oourt of Arbitration to control. Under present condition obtaining in this colony, both parties have the opportunity of placing the whole of the facts in connection with the particular trade or industry before the Arbitration- Court, of which a Supreme Court Judge is president, which gives a decision according to the evidence tendered. What more could reasonable men want? Mr Booth seems to desire that human labour should be placed upon the same footing as commodities, subject to supply and demand, to be used when wanted, cast on one side when not required. In fact, he wants employers to have power to reduce 'wages to the lowest possible point of subsistence during periods of industrial depression. We object to this as being unjust and unfair, as, whether labour is scarce or plentiful it should receive its real productive value in the labour market. With regard to the advocacy of efficiency of production, we can support the contention as being desirable, and the Trades Council to that end supported the proposal of the Industrial Association, for the establishment of technical classes in Christchurch, and some Unions hold classes for the instruction of apprentices, so that Mr. Booth's sweeping charge is certainly beside the mark. We would also point out that the rules of most of our Unions provide that the objects of the Unions shall be to counteract influences that may be working against members' interests, to initiate reforms, to sweep away abuses and to generally watch over and guard the interests of its members whenever they may be assailed. But whilst doing this, the members must bear in mind the Union was not formed 1 to work in antagonism to the employers, but, on the contrary, to show by their ability and strict attention to their work, that employers aw* studying their common interest by employing them.

Mr Booth makes a number of assertions as to the intelligence and morals of Unionists being below that of the average workman, and that -a large proportion, of the

best men were disgusted at some'of. their actions. Now, this is sh«er undiluted bunkum, and certainly cannot be proved or justified by Mr Booth. Statements of this character must inevitably reflect upon the person making them. Abuse is not argument, and wrtainly comes with a very bad grace from one who commences his address with a plea for good understanding between employers and employed. Under ideal conditions, na doubt, "Energy, diligence and efficiency" would be the measure of man's usefulnessjj but, as Henry George has said, "the e&cienoy of labour always increases with- the habitual wages of labour—for high wagea mean increased self-respect, intelligence,, hope and energy. Man is not & machine, that will do so much and no more;-he is not an animal, whose powers may reachi thus far and no further. . ... Tor increase the comforts, and leisure, and independence of the masses is to increase their intelligence. Who can say to what infinite powers the wealth-producing capacity of labour may not be raised by social ad* justments which will give to the producers of wealth their fair proportion of its advantages and enjoyments?" If Mr Booth understood the elements of the wages question he would know the difference between tie fixing of a maximum wage and a. mini-m-am wage is so wide that no reasoning can reconcile them. The law of wages is fixed by the standard of living, and .ft operates in the progressive demand for a shorter day.

To a certain extent individual character must be submerged in any collective effort for a common purpose, but Mr Frosticlß presumes a good deal when he declares tfaa* " More pay, less work" is the storting point from which unions work. We might retort that afl men. are rogues, and o»« statement ie as capable of proof as. tha other, and\he latter is much nearer ti» truth. Nevertheless, unionism has an aim with respect to the output of labour. Does Mr Frostiok realise wha,t the .maxisuxmi amount of work really is? It means tha utmost tention of mind and body during the whole of the .working hours. Why should any man or woman sacrifice himself or herself on the altar of greed in this way? We consider that the modern, means of production justify the workers in obtaining some of the benefits and comforts, and not allowing all the advantages to b« absorbed by the fewIf the employers would but sink their prejudices and direct their energies, which are now spent in fighting, to a holier cause, to bringing about a brighter and better , economic system, their reward would l , speedily follow. The present system robs the workers of our land of all that is sacred, sets man against man, produces vice, misery, dissipation and crime; is a systems of caste and inequality, \ system which is unholy and un-Ohristlike, and, as Ruskial puts it, "If on due and honest thought! over these things, it seems that the kiwi of existence to which men are now summoned by eyerj' 1 plea of. pity and claim of right, for some time at least, not be a luxurious one, consider whether, evem supposing it guiltless, luxury would be) desired by any of us, if we saw clearly at our sides the suffering which accompanies it in the world. Luxury is indeed' possiblai in the future, innocent and exquisite; luxury for all, and by the help of all, but luxury at present can only bo enjoyed by the ignorant; the cruellest man living could not sit at his feast unless he sat blindfold."—We axe, etc, . ERNEST GOHNS, President, W. NEWTON, Assistant-Secretary, On behalf of the Canterbury Trades Council. Oct. 30, 1902. ,