CONCILIATION BOARDS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4428, 7 August 1901, Page 7

CONCILIATION BOARDS.

views of a Southern-labour REPRESENTATIVE. Special to the “ Times.” DUNEDIN, August 6. Mr W. Hood, ex-prosident of the Workers’ Political Committee, and a thoroughly representative labour man, has been interviewed by the "Star’’ on the subject of labour legislation. He says there is no foundation for the complaint of tho employers and organisers of local industries that unionists are using the machinery of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in an irritating and unnecessarily harassing manner. The fact that bo many unions are taking advantage of the Act shows the necessity for its existence. The great maritime strike of 1890 was the embodiment of a great number of labour grievances that had been simmering for years. Previous to that strike there were a number of lessor strikes in various trades throughout the colony, creating labour discontent that reached a climax in 1890. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act settles these matters in a legal and orderly way. ‘ The cases are considered before impartial and responsible tribunals that deliberate upon the facts presented from both sides. Unionists are well aware that any action they mav take that would in any way injure the manufacturers as their employers would he detrimental to their own interests. The machinery of the Act is never put into operation with any other object than to define the conditions of employment in any particular industry, notwithstanding any opinion that 'may be expressed that the object of labour is solely to increase wages. As a matter of fact the Act has not increased wages. In some .trades it has lowered wages by a shilling a day below tho old union rate, when living and rent were much lower than at tho. present time. Tho Seddon Ministry makes the announcement that the nominal value of. property in tho country has been increased by eighteen millions, tho extra taxation on which, in the form of rent, has to he paid by the worker. While the worker has received no advance in wages, the actual value of his earnings has been correspondingly de creased owing to that extra, taxation. Therefore his nominal wages have less purchasing power than they had some years ago. Tho increased prosperity of the country generally, giving the worker steadier employment, has increased the consuming power of tho community. From a national point of view, every industry that can he brought to the same standard of perfection as that of any other country ought to be protected hy a sufficiently high tariff to place it in a position to hold the local market against the world. Of course, our local workers nujst be protected against the product of the long hours and low wages prevailing in some countries. No sane unionist is likely to ask for such wages or labour conditions as would stifle tho industry whereby ho gets his living. In answer to tho question : “Do you think tho workers are better off under a system of high wages and high prices than they would be with moderate wages and increased purchasing power for their money?” Mr Hood replied: "High wages put more money intcirculation than low wages, as the wageearner is the real spender, and consumer of the community. Therefore everybody is benefited when the worker gets high wages. The question you put assumes that high wages will have less purchasing power than low wages. Ido not agree with that assumption. If high and low wages have equal purchasing power then high wages are preferable. In any cases where high or low wages prevail prices will bo regulated accordingly. Workers’ wages, under any conditions will only purchase the necessaries of life. Experience of low wages in India, Japan, China and Europe does not bear out the assumption that increased purchasing power and low wages are likelv to go together.”