PAPERS ON LABOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7974, 4 December 1911, Page 7

PAPERS ON LABOUR

CAN COMPULSORY ARBITRATION PERMANENTLY SUCCEED ? (By Edward TnEGEAn.) No. I. This question is one which, like many other seemingly' simple inquiries, needs to be looked at from many- different sides before an answer that will satisfy a majority of those interested cau satisfactorily bo given. We ought to have at least an idea as to what constitutes success, and to whom such success would be accept able. Some have asserted that compulsory arbitration was inaugurated in New Zealand for the suppression of strikes; others say it was designed for the inoouragement of trades unionism. It was, indeed, considered that the introduction of Industrial Arbitration would foster both these .purposes, but not perhaps in the way that some persons since read into the project. The compulsion was to be indirect; the suppression of strike* was to be by the presentation of a better course of conduct, one which would be so acceptable on account of its rear sonablo and profitable character that only' tho very ignorant or the violently prejudiced ’would think of rejecting it in favour of the semi-barbaric system of strike or lock-out. Again, the trade unionism was to bo industrial unionism: that is, noU only tho organisation of bodies of workers, but also of associations of employers; not for tho purpose of pitting the strength of employers against that of employ'ees, but of forming definite and compact forces, no longer elusive through incoherence, but able through the collective powers of each side to come to substantial agreement and unified ■ action. If wo grant that this was tho intertion, we may also grant {that, at all events for a considerable lime, compulsory arbitration was a success. It is true that there has been, concurrent with the working oL the Act, a steady grumbling from one side or the other against tho measure. At first this came from tho employer's, who, after finding from hard experience that it was poor strategy to pretend to ignore the law,’ asserted frequently that ft had bred incessant disputes, and that the Golden Ago had passed aw'aywith curtailment of the power of employers to pay what wages they pleased, and work - their “hands” as long as they liked. Gradually the murmurings ceased as the em- - ployers slowly roab'sed that the Act was a friend in disguise, and although even at present there is sometimes a cry from an employer on whose corn tho law has stepped, still, as a general rule, the employer accepts arbitration as a principle which, if loyally observed by tho other side, is infinitely preferable to tho eccentric and disturbing strike. Tho workers, on the contrary, accepted indus. trial arbitration with open arms—too open arms, for they seemed to think it 0 sort of universal Cure-All; as something that was to bring in a new Heaven and a now Earth—which it is needless to say, it did not do. As time went on, and human weakness crept into tho administration of the Act, and also as the divinity .of the, principle seemed to creep out, the workers became the assailants of the Act, and tho employers became its well-wishers and defenders. ' Why the employers, with businesses strengthened and greatly extended during long years of steady prosperity should stand by the principle of arbitration, the New Zealand Year Book, with its (recorded increases’ in value of the products, land, factories, plant, wages, etc., can make a satisfactory and unanswerable reply. "Why the workers should be dissatisfied needs a more lengthy and elaborate designation than can hero bo given, except in a brief mention of two or three points. First, the workers had not considered that what they needed was,, not a rise : in, 1 wages, but increased purchasing power of their earnings, and therefore when they found that . increased wages ran side by side with higher cost of the necessaries of life (although such increased wages were not tho.main causa lof such higher cost of necessaries) they ■were’disillusioned. Nest, they did not understand that , the Arbitration Court was unable in. itself to alter industrial conditions subject to competitive strain; it is the whole economic system of wage-" paying and wage-earning which must be altered before any Court can allot to Workers that part of profit which is now absorbed by capital. Next, the general growth of Socialistic' ideas imbued the workers with the belief that modern industrialism is war; that what capital .gains labour loses, and that therefore if employers now favour the Act, the inter,cstß of the workers are in some way being injured by tho Act. There are a thousand other reasons, some simple, some intricate, for tho workers’ dissatisfaction, but these may suffice for the present argument.

Is the Act to bo regarded as a success at preseat? It is, in spito of bitter criticism, in spite of fiery invective both in New Zealand and abroad, for many thousands of people a practical success. It is true that lately several strong unions have withdrawn from under the jurisdiction of the Act, true that there are loud complaints, and there are angry cries uttered that it must be "mended or ended” j yet, withal, the country has enjoyed, and is enjoying under arbitration comparative industrial peace. Multitudce of men and women are working patiently and silently in the security the Act confers by its awards. The few strikes have been local, and in every case of a limited and insignificant character. We have not seen since the great maritime strike in 1890, any general disturbance of trade, any paralysis of production or distribution such as is of almost daily occurrence in countries which have not adopted a similar principle to ours. The workers, especially in the weak unions, have received hundreds of thousands of pounds they would not have been paid except lor the minimum wage clauses of awards, and even the stronger unions have benefited by the constant employment they have obtained through the prosperity of the cmpeying class. Can this success, now only comparative lad partial, be so stimulated and expanded as to become complete, to become a success as permanent as it is universal? It can, but only, when an, education in moral culture and a general uplifting of the ideals of citizenship shall have gained firm and endurinj acceptance. There must be a complete ueparture from present teaching anc from present social moth ode before ar bitralion can burst into full flower oi ■ usefulness. Training in individual sol fiehness and the gospel of "the devil take

the hintlnfivut" must bo forgotten and superseded by better feeling. Each man now going before the Arbitration Court wants his own particular gain to be the measure of good or ill and to bo accepted as tho standard of merit or demerit in the principle- Such a feeling is very natural. So great is the strain of modern industrial life, so eager and anxious must a man be, not only to obtain work, but to keep working* that his own personal circumstances fill the whol* horizon, lb knows that tho wife and children must have bread, that he must take homo every evening sufficient for their needs, so, gradually, ho disregards the claims of any others if such claims interfere with his own grip on life. Everything becomes measured by such a standard of necessities, and if arbitration will not give him sufficient reward to permit him to keep his family in decency and comfort then arbitration hs for him a failure. If, however, ns it is probable, social changes near at hand may apportion the general lots with more of justice, may make women (especially mothers,) economically free, may relievo the intense stress of anxiety in the man for the welfare of those dear to him, then it is possible that arbitration may bo | set in its true place, it will not be the urbltnutiuii we now know, viz., tho decision ns to which oi tho pack of human wolves shall have the ' - ed bone, but a calm judgment between thoughtful and coxiest inon ns to the fair apportionment >f tho rewards of labour, whether such labour bo mental or physical. That such a principle must not only be permanent (impossible to shake oxsupersede) will on further thought bo found undeniable. The most advanced thinker, the most imaginative builder of Utopia* canxxot pictuix* a state of human society in which there will be no individual differences of opinion. Without such differences there would be intellectual stagnation of a hopeless character. When tho wild beast has been further worked out of man; when we have "lot the ape and tiger die," there must still be some method resorted to by which diverse opinions in regard to tho direction of affairs can be reconciled. It can only be by compuisardly referring a dispute from prejudiced opinion to impartial opinion, and in the universal acceptance of that impartial opinion as supreme, that arbitration will find its fulfilment and its triumph.