THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1901. A TIMELY WARNING

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 34

THE New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1901. A TIMELY WARNING

No one knows better than the Premier when the psychological moment has arrived for crying “Halt” to a section of his supporters who may be driving him too far in a particular direction. That moment has unmistakably arrived in the case of the labour unions, whose influence in politics has in the past been out of proportion to their importance, numerical or otherwise. The revolt of the small farmers, which has of late been very marked, is a plain indication that even a Government that has, as it were, created the small farming class and elevated it into the position of a serious political factor, cannot depend upon the support of those it has in so many ways benefited unless its legislative enactment and administrative doings preserve a fair equilibrium in the State. Mr Seddon was commendably candid and properly minatory in his remarks to the deputation from labour unions that waited upon him yesterday afternoon to suggest changes in the working of Conciliation Boards. His statement that “both sides are sick of it all,” applied to the working of these Boards, might with equal truth have been applied to the whole subject of labour legislation; for the proposed amendment of the Factories Act now before Parliament is assuredly not desired by any party in the State. The fault is not with the conciliation and arbitration law so much as with the way in which it is being grossly misused by the labour unions „and their advisers. The tactics employed convey the impression that there is a desire either to bring conciliation into contempt, or to provide continuous work for labour agitators, some of whom have by a strange vagary found their way on to the Conciliation Boards. It is these latter gentry, and nott the reputable tradeunionists, Who are “riding the thing to death”—or to the destination usually arrived at by the proverbial beggar on horseback.

It is regrettable that a splendidlymeant piece of legislation is being imperilled by these means. Regrettable, too, is it to find that the only remedy ■which the unions seem able to propose is the creation of further billets and perquisites for the professional labour agitator. The Premier, we are glad to notice, promptly vetoed this idea, and gave a direct warning to the labour unions that they must “rest and be thankful,”

the Government. Not only is it absolutely necessary for the welfare of the country and its material progress thatthere should be no fresh legislation imposing additional clogs upon industrial enterprise, but there will inevitably be a demaud for a change in the Conciliation Boards unless the labour unions radically alter their methods. It is over a year since we drew attention to the unsatisfactory system of constituting the Boards, and advocated a change that would eliminate the labour agitator and his dispute-making methods. If each Board consisted of only one paid member, who should be chairman, and who should have the assistance in each dispute of one or two persons chosen by either side to act as expert advisers and cross-examiners rather than in a judicial capacity, we should have tribunals that would be more likely to prove conciliatory in their methods, and w© should have fewer appeals to the Arbitration Court, and hence no necessity would arise for appointing an additional Judge. The existing system, if it has not actually broken down, has come perilously near the collapsing point, as is shown by the fact that one dispute has remained unsettled for about two years. If tbe labour unions do not take note of the signs of the times and mend their ways accordingly, they must not complain if their best friends cluding the Premier —cuts them adrift and insist upon the repeal of are being abused.