"EMPLOYERS LED"

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22413, 8 May 1936, Page 13

"EMPLOYERS LED"

PREFERENCE CLAUSE MR. ARMSTRONG REPLIES RIGHT OF ENTRY TO PREMISES [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON,' Thursday The claim that in introducing preference to unionists the Government had merely followed an example set by many employers was made by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, when replying this evening to points raised by Opposition speakers during the second reading debate on tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill.

"There is nothing unreasohable in the proposed preference clause in the bill," said Mr. Armstrong, "and as a matter of fact if you want pure and simple, unadultercd compulsory unionism you have only to follow the example of the employers of this country. They led tho way in this matter."

There was nothing in the bill giving any rights to the workers that did not give equal rights to tho employers of labour, continued the Minister. It had been represented to him that a number of leading employers in the country believed that preference ought to apply both ways,, If the employers made representations to him asking for equal treatment along those linos, then he had no doubt that they would get what they asked for.

Tho Minister also contended that there was nothing unusual about the clauso giving union officials rights of entry to employers' premises. Usually the first on* to shake tho hand of a union official visiting a factory was tho manager, and it was very rarely that any employer took exception to tho visit.

"Why the new clause, then?'" asked an Opposition member

"To deal with that isolated case where some stupid employer takes exception," retorted Mr. Armstrong. "J am not going to say that all trades union officials are the reasonable people in the world: there may be an unreasonable one, and we are going to deal with him also, because he has to get a permit from the Court to make the entry." Mr. Armstrong said that to claim that the clause would give union officials the right to invade the sanctity of the home was a wicked misrepresentation. The home was not an industrial place, and tho clause definitely came under the heading of industrial matters.

To overcome those fears it was intended -to alter the clause in the bill dealing with the rights of registration so that the Minister and not the existing union was given power to consent to registration. The clause at present stipulated that where there was au existing union and application was made for registration of another union in the same industrial district and in the same industry, the application could not be granted without the concurrence of the existing union. Under the amended clause the Minister would take power to consent to registration.

FIXING BASIC WAGE THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN REPLY BY MINISTER [BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL REPORTER] WELLINGTON, Thursday The fixing of the basic wage on the requirements of a man, his wife and three children was criticised by Mr. S. G. Holland (Opposition—Christchurch North) during the committee stages of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives te-night. "When this bill was -before the Labour Bills Committee," said Mr. Holland, "two or at the outside three trade union secretaries asked that it should be amended so that the basic wage would be fixed on the needs of a man, his wife and three children instead of the original proposal of a man, his wife and two children. One of the secretaries said he had been in 20,000 homes in Wellington and knew the conditions, but another admitted it was a guess. To guess is dangerous. "It was shown at the 1926 census," Mr. Holland continued, "that there were in New Zealand 256,000 adult male workers and they had dependent on them altogether 233,000 children. Of those 256,000 workers 153,000 were married. The Minister of Labour, Hon. H. T. Armstrong: When was that?

Mr. Holland: In 1926. Mr. Armstrong: You have not allowed any to be born since. Mr. Holland: And I have not allowed any to die, either. "We arc providing for 103,000 wives who are not married," continued Mr. Holland, "and for 537,000 children who are not yet born. By providing for a man, his wife and three children we are providing for industry to carry 640,000 more people than there are in New Zealand. The Commonwealth of Australia adjusted the figure to two children, in New South Wales it is one and in Western Australia and Queensland two each." , Mr. Holland suggested that the Minister would secure the co-operation of the Opposition if he agreed that the number of children to be considered was reduced to two. • The Minister, in reply, said he had decided on providing for three children so as to obtain a higher basic wage. Opposition Members: That is frank, anyway.