Chamber of Commerce and Arbitration Court

Manawatu Times, Volume LII, Issue 6454, 11 November 1927, Page 10

Chamber of Commerce and Arbitration Court

(To the Editor.) Sir, —It is amazing to road of the blind and unreasoning hostility of tho local Chamber of Commerce towards our Industrial arbitration and conciliation system. That this system is not perfect is granted, but it certainly does permit of a sane, reasonable, and legal method for parties to an industrial dispute to meet, first, in conciliation and, if no argument o r only a partial argument is reached then in the Arbitration Court for a final decision, which is legally binding on all parties to the dispute. It further permits of a common-sense way of 1 collective bargaining. All intelligent employers and workers realise that it is more agreeable and more effective to deal with working conditions and ■ wages as affecting a whole industry, than for an employer to have to ar- 1 range terms with each individual employee. But the main bone of contention agitating- the minds of the members of tho Chamber of Commerce is “preference to unionists.” Surely Sir, no worker can bring forward any logical argument why ho should not be a member of a union. Unionism, has been a great factor, not only in improving the conditions of tho worker, but has most certainly been instrumental in compelling the captains of industry to adopt ,mor c efficient methods of production. Why should Mr. M. H. Oram in the Chamber of Commerce single out the wage worker, for their protestations against “ preference to unionists.” Hav e not other groups or people got preference to unionists? Even some of the members of the Chamber of Commerce have their unions and I am sure they guard very jealously their rights and privileges unionism has gained for them. Take for instance the scale of charges for services rendered by members or the legal fraternity, which have boon fixed by their union and which compare more than favourably, with any scale of wages the workers hav c been awarded by the Arbitration Court. The doctors, dentists, architects and land agents, all have their scale of fees fixed by their organisations, not by the Arbitration Court certainly, j bu t they arc legally enforceable ' ’ nevertheless. ,; If wc were, to apply |h c policy of ,: “payment by results,' which thoji Chamber so loudly clamours for to ! I these privileged persons, wc would at j times require a microscope, to see tho i results or services rendered. It ill 1 ; becomes members of the chamber of j ( commerce to denounce the slight t protection which (he worker possess- j es undp the law, when they them- e selves enjoy much greater privileges, j t —Yours, etc., c FRANK EANGSTONE. v