BOON OR BANE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLIII, Issue XLIII, 16 April 1909, Page 2

BOON OR BANE.

ARBITRATION ACT DISSECTED. BY BUSINESS MEN. "THE CONSUMER ~PAYS FOR IT" At the conference of Chambers of Commerce yesterday Mr H. Broadhead, secretary of the Canterbury Employers' Association, read a carefully-prepared paper on the working of the Arbitration Act. He sketched the more recent history of the labour question in New Zealand, and gave an account of the working of the Arbitration Act. Amongst the subjects dealt with were : Breaches of award 6, incompetent workers, and apprentices. Continuing, Mr Broadhead said : "If the industries of this country are to. progress as they ought they' must not be hampered by labour legislation. lam of opinion, after careful survey of labour matters hire for nine years that the Arbitration Act has hindered and is still hindering, the industrial progress of the country." While our industries had progressed, they would, in his opinion, have increased by leaps and bcund6 if the employer.; h.«l had a f'Fe hand, instoad if being fettered on every hand. Nothing could b e said against any reasonable stop that might be taken to keep down real sweating, but the sweating that hod occurred in this coun try could have been easily checked by the insertion of a clause or two in the Factories Act. if Wages are deduced. An interesting problem faced the Arbitration Court if the employers applied for a reduction of wages — if the condition of trade warranted it. Dealing with preference to unionists Mr Broadhead said that his experience was that unionism was never satisfied, and every concession given to it paved the way for a further demand. Mr Justice Sim's advocacy of absolute compulsory unionism had "served one gbod purpose. It had shown employers the danger which threatened their liberty, and Uiat of thousands of workers. OPPOSED TO PREFERENCE. Mr Broadhead said he had always opposed preference in any form, not merely because it was an infringement of the liberty of the subject, and was contrary to common law, but because its advocates had never been able to advance sound reasons why it should be granted. Many workers did not belie.ye in unionism, and would have' nothing to do with it. Why should the liberty of these men be interfered with? Had they no riijht to have a mind of their own? A MOST HARMFUL EFFECT. 'Mr Bronduead submitted figures from which he said that it would be seen that the excess per cent, of importations over local manufactures in 1905 as compared with 1895. was as follows: Boots and shoes, 95 per cent; woollens. 57 per con.; machinery and implements, 95 per cent. Yet the period from 1895 to 1905 witnessed, perhaps, the time of the Dominion's greatest prosperity. "There is a widespread opinion" said Mr Broad, head "that the workers of this country are being coddled by the State, and that this coddling is having a' most harmful effect." In conclusion,, the speaker said: "It is my humble opinion that the- Arbitration Act has not accomplished what its author expected of it; that it has checked industrial enterprise, and that it would bo better for the country if a simple Act for the prevention of strikes in important industries, and the. settlement of all disputes by voluntary conciliation and arbitration, wero established." Tho president proposed and it was agreed that a" vote of thanks be accorded t 0 Mr Broadhead for his in. teresting paper. APATHY OF BUSINESS MEN. Mr J. D. Nathan (Wellington) after complimenting Mr Broadhead upon his paper said it was the general public that paid. In Wellington the com. mercinl class was very apathetic in re. gard to questions of this description, or even in regard t o political or com. mercial questions. If the class that was so materially affected by the mat. tera referred to by Mr Broadhead would not join hands and endeavour to get the legislation amended so t.s t () suit their own particular class and the Dominion generally, it must bo agreed that labour in the street and trade 1 * unions were only doing what was right in combining to further their own interests. And, in his opinion, that must go on. There way nothing wrong in his view, in tho formation of a workers' union. IX FAVOUR OF UNIONS. In fact, if he were a worker himself ho would be one of the first '.i pro. poso tlio formation of a unioa. Tho men wero quite right to form unions, and get all tho benefits they couli from them. Those present migh; just as well be honest. They were thcro for the benefit of the commercial community and for the country. Labour in the street had just a;; mv.M right to combine as they had. With reference to preference, to unionists, he might point out that in trade they lia.l to meet combinations of capital. There wero in that city and cou-iliy ci.rp". rations trading which laid down rules and regulations under which they would trade with you ; and if you did not comply with those rules you did not get supplied. If they looked through tho Statute-books of Great Britain and her oversea dominions they would find that during the last few years the right of labour t 0 eombino had been recognised. For every hundred Acts on the Statute book of Great Britain. 95 per cent, were for the protection of wealth and property; and it was only during the last few years that humanitarianism had spread over tho civilised world, and that the right') of man and of labour bad been properly recognised. Anyone, travelling through Great Britain would recoguiso that the conditions of labour w;-ro very different there from what they wero here. They did not want to see. the Old World conditions repeated in this country. The question was: Wero we running to tho other extreme ? L-i many cases the workers at Homo did not work under the same sanitary conditions as the workers here. It was possible that those who were making our laws were going to the other ex. treme. It was tho same ■with our land legislation. We were going from una extreme to tho other. WHO PAYS? Who "was paying for all this? They (the merchants and manufacturers) wero paying for it first, and for the. inconvenience of it. That was quite true. But who paid for that? It was the general public. If the whole of the public aro willing to pay tho extra price under the present system what could those present say? it would not bo until tha ordinary middle.class workers paid, and they wanted to reduce the cost of living that this question would bo faced As he had said, as long as tho consumer was prepared to pay tho extra price be aid not see why the traders or ''DomtioT" Sh ° Uld grUIUbIe -