THE ARBITRATION ACT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10868, 7 April 1921, Page 5

THE ARBITRATION ACT

SHOULD IT GO 1 PROFESSOR FAVOURS* CUTTING IT OUT. 1 •‘IT CANNOT STOP STRIKES.” There was a big attendance at the Accountants* Chambers last night, when Professor B. E. Murphy lectured on “The New Zealand Industrial Arbitration System.” Mr W. T>. Hunt was in the chair. Professor Murphy said the problem of industrial peace was a result of the growth, of capitalistic industry. There was a profound split between the employers, who owned ,the instruments and directed the process of production, and the workers, who owned the labour power. These two sections confronted eaoh other with undisguised and every-increasing hostility. Each wanted a fair share, but, what was fair ? Was it a customary share, or what each could get? The industrial surplus, was decided by trial of strength, and the objects of industrial peace systems were to a sort.: of Industrial Hague Convention to regularise the struggle. It was analogous to international peace arrangements at 'all points. SUBSTITUTED GRAB FOR CONCILIATION. Arbitration had but a limited scope for industrial countries. ' The trouble was that there was no general principle that could be applied, for no such principle existed. The object was to f get’ an award that would work and not' i exasperate either side so much as to !be repudiated. Arbitration went for social peace, with justice as a possible by-product, and, therefore, had not brought industrial peace. That could only be attained by . going for soma! justice, with social peace as a by-pro-duct. Compulsory Arbitration was the same in principle, except that it was imposed on the parties and enforced by compulsion in theory. As to our own system it was well administered, but it was costly and it had not brought industrial peace or I avoided strikes. Australasia, the home of compulsory * arbitration, was also the home of strikes and bitter industrial warfare. Ike Act has not brought about a better spirit.. It bad exasperated industrial relatione and substituted grab for conciliation. It had never raised wages. What had? Chronic shortage pf labour, together with restrictions on immigrants and apprentices; the prosperity of the Dominion due to borrowing and refirigprai tien; the rising price level since 1896; ‘ and protective tariff. ‘‘REVOLUTIONARY AND UNPRACTICAL.” Arbitration bad taken the steel out of the unions, deprived them of their real functions and made labour idealistic, revolutionary and unpractical, as seen in the present Labour party. What was meant by Mr Ramsay Macdonald, whose remark it was that arbitration bad taken the steel ant of the unions, was that it never paid a group of men to get someone else to do what they ought to do for themselves. The workers in New Zealand were beaten on the field of industrial strife in the maritime strike .of 1890, and they sought to win back what they lost there'in the political Arid. ksbom linked with Liberalism, and became harnessed to the chariot of Mr Seddon. Arbitration had introduced the corse of Utigiouaness and Had' killed conciliation in the real sense, i t had fostered the growth of a class of dispute manufacturers until the conciliation board* became a byword and were ignored. The law was a. blind force working for the strongest ' element in the community. Originally intended to prevent strikes, it assumed the function inevitably or regulating the whole industrial conditions of the. Dominion. Hence it bad hampered. manufacture and failed to improve the; efficiency of labour. And it bad je-, tarded economic progress. The numbers of factories and factory employees had decreased in. spite of the tariff. SYSTEM TERRIBLY EXPENSIVE. The system was terribly expensive to the consumer, and under it our industries were a liability, not an assert. It was inconsistent with Whitleyism, and the spirit of the age. Industrial control and better relations, could, not be introduced when the terms were_ fixed by an outside body. The court was not flexible enough, and always was ultra-conservative. It led to a State by the fixation of rents, interest, and profits, and we were at. or approaching, that stage in New Zealand to-day. That meant Socialism. He did not say Socialism was a good thing or a bad thing, but we did not know we were blundering along the. road to Socialism when we passed the Arbitration Act, Look bow far we had gone 1 We bad certain prices fixed, rents fixed, interest fixed. Wo were blundering along the path to State Socialism, and we did not seem to have realised it. The scope and influence of the Act was illusory. The most important New land industry, farming, was almost entirely outside the Act, and the most important unions were outside it. Put to the test, the bluff would be called, and the Act could not be enforced on either Labour or Capital. It could not stop strikes. “WHAT IS NEEDED.” What was needed was the improvement of the conciliation machinery and the introduction of the human touch. Until we eliminated the compulsory sections, and worked more on the conciliation section, we would not giake au advancement. It was spiritual and ■ moral problem, and, therefore, very elusive. It would he better for this country and more favourable tn industrial peace if we cut out arbitration and substituted -hpre what they had in Britain—State _ arrangements for facilitating conciliation between the immediate parties to disputes. Professor Murphy was heartily applauded, and was thanked for his lecture.