THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1936 NEW LABOUR LAWS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22400, 22 April 1936, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1936 NEW LABOUR LAWS

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill has been returned to the House of Representatives with a few amendments, none of which dispose of the objection that the measure is consistently one-sided. Apparently the Labour Bills Committee has not been much influenced by the evidence placed before it. That was hardly to be expected, because the Minister of Labour ensured a "safe majority" on the committee in favour of this Government bill. It is regrettable for the sake of the Government, as well as of employers and workers, that the proposals are not likely to be approached with an open mind. There are two sides to every industrial bargain and, if in negotiations one party is placed at a decided disadvantage, the result is apt to be injurious to both. If, as in this particular case, the employer is handicapped or hurt, so also will be his industry and the workers engaged in it. That is certainly not the Government's intention, yet such may be the unfortunate effect. The Government's aim has been not so much to mulct the employer as to help the worker, but it has forgotten that both parties must prosper or languish together. More serious than that has been the fundamental omission to take account of the fact that industry has an economic basis. The whole idea has been to improve conditions for the worker, to increase his wages, regardless of the fact that he can take out of industry only what he puts in. In the last resort wages and conditions must be dependent on earnings. Failure to appreciate that basic truth may place an economic negative on the realisation of the Government's wellintentioned objectives and cause unemployment and suffering to many workers.

The two most prominent instances in the bill have to do with the provisions for a basic wage and a 40hour week. In neither case is the ability of the industry to afford the new condition the determining factor. In the first the Court has to consider what would be "a fair and reasonable standard of comfort" for a family, and, in the second, whether it would be "impracticable to carry on efficiently any industry" under the 40-hour week. Apart from the lack of respect paid to the economic factor, this latter clause is one of several that is weighted against the employer. An a rule, when a change is to be made from the existing system, those desiring it must show justification. With the shorter working week, however, the principle is held to be established unless the employer can show cause of a particular kind for exemption. Similarly the employer may be disregarded with respect to union officials' right of access to his premises and employees. Experience provides no warrant for over-riding the right at common law of the owner of premises. If under this bill domestic workers should be placed under an award, as is quite possible, the housewife could not restrain union secretaries from entering her house and interviewing 'her maid or maids. The bill, moreover, re-establishes compulsory arbitration, a system that has in practice been proved one-sided. Employers are effectively bound by awards but unions can and do reject them. The penalties in restraint of strikes have proved ineffective, and, although that is known, the Government's bill does nothing to strengthen disciplinary powers under the Act. If the Government professes faith in the principle of compulsory arbitration, it should seek to make sure that the powers of the law are applied impartially and should not re-establish a power theit defies the law. Actually the new bill will leave employers more helpless than before when unions choose to reject an award. The bill provides for compulsory unionism, making it an offence for an employer to engage or continue to employ a non-union-ist. If a union goes on strike, although it does so in defiance of the law, it will be illegal to engage any other workers to replace the unionists. The employer is thus placed completely at the mercy of the unionists, and so also may be the public and the Government if an essential service is at stake. Compulsory unionism is it/self an objectionable provision. The principle of collective bargaining has long 'ago been accepted, but it is another thing to compel every adult worker to join a union on pain of losing his job. He may not approve the policy of the union or be at odds with its officials, yet he cannot resign from an association with which he may be in profound disagreement. Apart from the issues of right and freedom, his pocket may be affected. For, while forcing every worker to become a unionist, the bill also removes the limit at present placed on union levies. In this way a worker may be compelled to subscribe out of his earnings to causes that are repugnant to him. If Parliament has respect for the liberty of the subject, it should insist on safeguarding this clause. It should intervene, also, against the several provisions that have the effect of reinforcing and entrenching the trades unions and setting up a labour oligarchy, automatically and compulsorily assured of members and funds, placed in a monopolistic position, and armed with wide powers. The fact is the bill is a thoroughly partisan measure which, unless carefully revised by Parliament, will prejudice employers and employees alike.