THE LABOUR LAWS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4441, 22 August 1901, Page 4

THE LABOUR LAWS.

So far, we have not read or heard any valid or satisfactory reason) for the changes in the labour laws contemplated under the Factories Act Arriendment Bill now before the Legislature. Consolidation of the law is of course desirable ; but the people’s representatives must be careful that, under cover of consolidation,. they do not allow new and harassing restrictions to be imposed upon the country’s manufacturing interests. Tha measure now before Parliament is therefore very properly receiving the most careful consideration from a Select Committee ; and it is to be hoped that there will be no relaxation of vigilance when it comes before the Legislature as a whole. Whatever the committee may recommend, members of the House and Council must bring their individual experience as well as their collective wisdom to bear upon the various proposals, lest the unintended and deplorable result of fresh legislation should be the crippling or destroying of some of our nascent industries. The opinions of various employers of labour, as garnered by a representative of this journal, are distinctly adverse to the new proposals of the Bill. They are more; they betray a most undesirable feeling of uneasiness at the ap. parent absence of all finality in labour legislation, and an apprehensiveness of evil results which ig based as much on actual experience of the past as on vague fears for the future. Absolute finality is not, of course, to he expected in any matter of human device; for new conditions are continually arising and new abuses may creep in requiring the application of a legislative remedy. Unless, however, some such new condition or evil is proved to exist, the Legislature would he wise to refrain from making alterations in the laws affecting industry —changes which, unimportant though they may be in themselves, have an unsettling and disjointing tendency. In this category must be placed the new clauses introduced into the Fac. tories Act, dealing with the question of over-time. Has any evil or abuse arisen through men being occasionally asked, in times of emergency, to work more than three hours’ overtime in one day? If there has, we have yet to learn of it. Have workmen complained of being overtaxed in the matter of the extra hours worked in the course of the year? So far as we know the workers, they are only too glad to employ part of their spare energies in earning the higher rate of wages given for overtime. Employers do not, as a rule, like to pay an advance of

fifty per cent, on the price of labour which they employ, as the products of that labour have to compete in the open market with those that have been paid for at the normal rate of wages. Vi ho, then, has asked for the imposition of absurd re. etrictioas upon the working of overtime? Evidently s omc academic “reformer,” desirous of trying an economic experiment at the expense of New Zealand industries; or some deluded philanthrophist, who imagines that men and women in this country are in a condition of serfdom and require to be protected against hard and grinding taskmasters who are taxing them beyond their powers. Certainly the proposal is based upon no necessity. As certainly no reason has been advanced that would justify such interference with industrial operations as would result from the enactment of the new clauses referred to. Similarly, it is impossible to discern the necessity 'or desirableness of adding to the number of compulsory holidays in the year and of stipulating that men and women should bo paid for holiday-mak-ing. No objection can bo taken to every reasonable movement for reducing the hours of labour, because wo have by no means reached the ‘irreducible minimum” of working hours designed to got the best results from the workers and to spread employment more widely; but it is a totally different matter to impose harassing resTrTctlons jn the matter of overtime and to make unjust demands for unearned wages;.

The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act is a powerful onougb en. gine for obtaining equitable labour conditions without making an attempt to impose hard and fast restrictions as to holidays and hours of labour. It would bo grossly unjust to a number of industries if tncse new clauses were enacted, xn many industries, agreements have been arrived at, with a currency of two or three years, fixing the hours and remuneration of labour; and on the basis of tbe.se agreements contracts have been entered into and other arrangements made. Any new provision adding to the price of labour during the currency of these industrial agreements must upset all calculations, entail loss upon employers and result in the curtailment of operations. In fairness, therefore, it should be stipulated that those new provisions, if adopt, ed, should not apply to such industries as are working under awards of the Arbitration Court or under voluntary industrial agreements. The right thing, however, is for Parliament to “let well alone” in the matter of labour legislation at present. If statute consolidation is to be made the pretext for introducing changes in the law, the friends of labour s hould remember that these changes might as well take the shape of relaxing some conditions which are found irksome by employers of labour. TVe trust the Legislature will pass the measure, in so far as it consolidates the law, and that labour matters will be allowed a chance to “consolidate” jn a period of industrial calm and prosperity such as can never he attained while disturbing legislation is proposed every year.