THE ARBITRATION BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13798, 10 July 1908, Page 6

THE ARBITRATION BILL.

A CONFIDENT MINISTER.

STRAIGHT TALK TO WORKERS.

> DO THEY WANT STRIKES OR NOT?"

[BY TELEGRAPH.— SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]

Wellington. Thursday. The Minister for Labour (the Hon. J. Millar) states that the new Arbitration Bill is going through this session. All the same, several of the Labour members say the Bill will not get through in its present form. Recent experiences, the Minister save, pointed to a revolt on the part of Labour against, the Arbitration Act. The continued threats of cancellation also pointed to the fact that if the law was to remain on the Statute Book more effective measures would require to bo enacted. Mr. Millar states that he had been notified by a very huge number of members that if given" the opportunity they would repeal the Act, and this fact, coupled with the fact that a general election was pending, showed that these members were prepared to go to the country on the point. The citation of the 7000 Canterbury farmers was largely responsible for this. Mr. Millar maintains that the new Act is not so drastic as the present one. He adds that it is absolute, nonsense to say that under this Bill a man will have no freedom to leave his work. All the Bill does is to make a strike, or combined action illegal. The plain question for the workers now is, Do they want strikes, or not?

"The Rill" continued the Minister, with direct, plainness.-, "will bring it-right home to the unionists that they will require to look after their own affairs a little better than they have been doing if thev desire to have the benefits of peace in 'the industrial world. It is a. question for the people to decide for themselves whether it is right that 60,000 or 70,000 people may be put in a state of semi-star-vation through the rash action of a few men. As to the proposed ' needs and ' exertion' wage, the object of the Covernment in putting the clause into the Bill is to provide that if both parties desire the judce may fix a 'needs' wage instead of a minimum wage in that particular industry. If that provision, or something similar to it, is not pitt in, we must continue on the present lines of one dead level minimum wage to be paid to the great majority of worker?." In regard to the question of conciliation. Mr. Millar says that the conciliation boards have failed'in their purpose, and that the present effort is to provide a means of conciliation as originally intended when the Act was passed. "If the unions,*' he said, "do not want conciliation then let them say straight out, and have the Court and nothing but the Court.. We are not going to have a lower Court and a Court of Appeal to deal with labour disputes. That is the position at

It is stated that the Labour Bills Committee expect to*be able 'o reoort the Arbitration Bill back to the House within three weeks of commencing to take evidence.

"ACT FOR THE WORKERS."

DEBATE IN THE UPPER HOUSE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —rRE-SS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington-, Thursday. \ Speaking in the Legislative Council this afternoon, on the resumption of the debate on the. Address-iu-Reply, the Hon. G. Jones, referring to industrial strife, said New Zealand enjoyed liberty, and the course lately purstted by the unions might lead to bloodshed, as it had done in other countries. The Arbitration Act was mad* at the instigation of the workers. At time* j they had moved to obtain advantages under the law. and they had pledged themselves to abide by certain obligations under the law. Neither the masters nor their friends desired that labour legislation, and it was with the utmost difficulty that it was {Kissed. It was, therefore, ungrateful for the workers to belittle and treat with indignity a measure which had been passed at their instigation. A charge of maladministration had been made within the past two years, because the Court could i not continue to go on increasing wages. It was the duty of the Court to decide what were reasonable terms, but there had been so much rebellion lately that one was inclined to think the bottom had fallen out of the Act. Incidentally, Mr. Jones referred-to the Blackball strike, expressing sympathy with the demands of the men. Touching on the bakers' strike, he contended that the - minimum wage was not sufficient for the support of the men. Mr. Jones proceeded to advocate statutory preference to unionists, which should be reciprocal, applying to ' the employers' unions and the workers unions, and if a guarantee proposal were, enacted preference could well be granted. The Hon. J. Barr. expressed approval of the Government's efforts on behalf of the people of the Dominion. Referring to socialism, he said every Labour member of the Council was a socialist to the backbone, and he questioned whether there was a man* in the whole Dominion who had not socialist. principles, but there were no revolutionary socialists in New Zealand. Referring to the Arbitration Act, he said there was. doubt the workers of the Dominion had realised the benefits of the Arbitration Court, and they were not going to allow it go by the board because a few • discontented persons expressed dissatisfaction with the Act. Everyone wanted • the industries of the Dominion to progress, but they wanted the workers to progress with the industries. He urged that a living minimum wage should be given in every trade, so that the workers' needs could he provided for adequately. He adversely criticised the Attorney-General's " exertion" wage proposal, asserting that the employers were not so much concerned in the quality of the work* so long as it looked like good work, 'consequently tiiey expected quantity and the "exertion" proposal would result in scamping work. He added that the proposal of an. " exertion" . wage was a sop to the employers.

',- FEELING IN DUNEDIN. [BY TELEGRAPH.OWN CORRESPONDENT.] ' 'Dcnedin, Thursday. • Mr. Wm. Scott, secretary of the Otago Employers' Association, interviewed today, said * the employers were anxiously awaiting the full text of the Bill before giving any decided opinion on it. "In mv opinion," he went on, "the new Bill is an honest attempt to solve a most difficult problem. The Government has evidently realised that arbitration and strikes cannot go together, and with that end in view has brought in a strike prevention clause, which, if carried, should go a- long way in the directive of reducing this evil. The method by which it is proposed to collect fanes from the workers is something new, although it will probably not be appreciated by either employers or workers. Still it is worthy of a trial. The weakest i portion, to my mind, is in regard to the i councils of conciliation, from whose recommendations there is an appeal to the Arbitration Court. This simply means a return to the old order of things, and two Court cases in connection with every dispute. Employers would very much' have preferred voluntary conciliation, and 1 think the difficulty could have been got over by 'the Court having power to. insist upon the parties coming together in conference, and us'ug that means to bring about: an amicab settlement before a dispute should' be referred to the Court. Personally I would go further and give the Court power to nominate a, chairman, whose duties it would bo to bring parties together, endeavour to effect settlement, and failing that report tc the Court when no agreement had been arrived at. T am of opinion, that the 'exertion' wages clause will -be. found impracticable."

Mr. R. Breen, secretary of the Trades and Labour Council, said that he did not consider the appointment of stipendiary magistrates as chairmen of the conciliation, councils would work out as fairly as the present method of appointing as chairman of a conciliation board a prominent and experienced trades unionist. Ml". 0. C. Thomson, president of the Employers' Association, considered that the appointment of stipendiary magistrates as chairmen of the conciliation councils would cause trouble and would prove fatal. He did not think employers would approve of the proposal to make them collectors of Government revenue in regard to the fines imposed.

VIEWS OF WANGANUI EMPLOYERS. [BY telegraph. PßESS ASSOCIATION.] Wanganui, Thursday.

At a meeting of the Wanganui Employers' Association this morning the following resolution was carried:—''That this association, while deeply regretting the fact, is of opinion that the Arbitration Act is a complete failure as regards the enforcement of awards against workers, and that in the nature of things such encements are impossible. This association is, therefore, of opinion that, the Arbitration Act should be repealed, aud that any discussion as to suggested amendments would be useless."

CHRISTCHURCH PRESS OPINIONS. [BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] Christchurch, Thursday. Dealing with the new Arbitration Bill. the Press says:— "We believe that the Government are honestly desirous of making the compulsory principle in the Act more equitable in its application and more effective, but have they done so? So far as we. can sec they have not touched the bedrock difficulty of the old Act. The reason why it broke down was that while on the one hand employers were easily compelled to obey an award and keep the law, the workers could not be forced to do so. In what respect does the new Bill get over this difficulty? It simply provides that the unfortunate employer is to do what the Court and the Government are unable to do; that, is, collect the fines from the men. if he fails to do this he must pay the money himself. How any sane member of a responsible Government, can imagine that he is thus dealing out even handed justice is utterly beyond our comprehension. Whatever else is retained, this monstrous provision must go. The truth is both the Government ami Parliament had better face at once the real truth, namely, that the principle of compulsory arbitration lias been tried and found impossible to work. All that can be done, it seems to us, is to fall back upon the principle of conciliation, a.nd trust to the force of public opinion to avert strikes and lockouts, and to minimise their v evils where they occur." The Times says:—"The Minister has greatly improved the prospects of the Bill by substituting 'councils of conciliation' for the industrial councils of last year's Bill. Mr. Miller proposes to restore Conciliation Boards under their new name to their former importance, to get rid of their objectionable features, and to give them the status to which they are entitled. The Boards have more and more modelled their procedure on that of the Court. We believe that the new proposal will meet the desires of fair-minded workers. The provisions regarding the penalties for striking are made sufficiently drastic. -Dr. Findlay's proposals regarding the differentiation of 'needs' wages and*' exertion' wages have been given a. place in the Bill, and might very weir be given a trial. On the whole, the Bill is a decided improvement upon that of last year."