RIDING THE ARBITRATION ROUNDABOUT.

NZ Truth, Issue 437, 8 November 1913, Page 4

RIDING THE ARBITRATION ROUNDABOUT.

Why Waterside Workers Wont. No Finality That Way.

For years In Erltaln. America and Australasia the question of a Living Wago has been tho subject of discusBlon by Amitratl tn D>ards. Wage*. Boards. Trades Congresses, and tho cause of strikes, lock-out*, and labor unrest generally, and it does not scent as if the question is any nearer solution. In this country we have tried Compulsory Arbitration for twenty, years, and though wages have been repeatedly raised, tho workers do not seem to be any nearer this attainment of a living wnge than they were In the days prior to legalised and compulsory arbitration. Only tho other day the Courj delivered Its award m the case of the carters and drivers, nnd its deliverance was hailed with cries of Indignant protest by all proarbltraUon. and so. called sane lenders of labor In this Dominion. This Is all the more worth noting, as at the Ume tho award was »;lven th« greatest fight, up to th« present. In the annals of New SSmland'a Industrial history was being waged around this very question of compubory arbitration. Further. It waa also .\t a timo vh?n the "moderate" and "semdble" Labt-t loaders had thrown all their weight on the side ot tbe Government, In r>nler to help to retain the Conciliation and Arbitration Act on the Statute Book. And just at such a time Judge Sim gave an award In the easr. refen-<KI to that Klruck a harder blow nt tho system of compulsory arbitration than all the agitation of Red Raggers, who have opposed it all along; and their

new ally, m this at least, the Federation of Labor. As the head- of the Court m New Zealand has by his master-tainted awards and biassed judgments done more than any other force m this country to make arbitration m general, and this Court m particular, stink m the nostrils of the workers, so it • would seem" the head of the same Court m New Sotith Wales (though, m this case, we grant all unwillingly) has just "rendered the same service- or disservice to the system there. We readily surrender to the claim that no two men anywhere have done more to make the system of arbitration a demonstrated success than Judge Heydon of the N.S.W. Court and Judge Hlggins of tho Commonwealth Court. It is quite clear that both' these judges entered upon their duties m their respective spheres determined to hold the scales of justice and equity as fairly and steadily as human hands • could. It is evident also, from much that they have given utteranceTto during the time they have held their re- • spective positions, that they had then held the opinion that industrial unrest, and more especially labor strikes, were about to become things of the past. As years have gone on their ex- . periehce has not altogether confirmed . this assumption. They have found that there is more at the botton? cf industrial unrest and labor agitation • than they had dreamt .f. m their philosophy. Judge Higgins more than , once has shown that bo now ire'eog- , nises there ore other forces that militate against the success of an award than the mere refusal of the workers to loyally accept the same. Judge Heydon now fitids himself forced by the very logic of events to admit that any increase granted by the Court may be immediately qualified by a concurrent rise m the cost of living. - • • ■ • '■ Tbe latter gentleman the other day felt constrained to make some interesting remarks regarding this discovery ot his. He said: .". The basic wage is not Axed as a bore subsistence wage, but at a rate which will enable the worker, however humble, to lead a humsu life, to marry and bring up a family and maintain them and himself with, at any rate, some small degree of comfort. We will not higgle with his lordship over what is and what is not "some small degree of comfort," that not being our chief purt>ose m dealing with this subject to-day. Let us say m passing that "comfort" is a- relative term, and it depends altogether on one's point of view whether the "degree of comfort" claimed or granted as fair does or does not itself reduce the basic wage to "a bare subsistence wage." That much even Judge Hiydori, with his judicial training, could not fail to observe. • "■' . *•' ■ "'•' Where Judge Hoydon, however, deals the knockrout blow, to compulsory arbitration is when he- goes on to admit that tho cost of living can increase subsequently to the granting hy the Court of a basic living wage, so that the ."basic wage" is no longer a "living wager'^yet. the worker is .not entitled to Jmlnediately come and ask for a readjustment. . , ■ ' ■ .. .. »v V n ' * • . We cannot understand by what method ,of reasoning or rule m either logic or 1 law Judge Heydon arrives, at this conclusion. To us it appears to reduce the whole Court procedure to a farce. For why does the Court grant an increase m- the first place? Is It not because the cost of living has so. Increased as to compel the worker to reduce his standard of living below that which he has hitherto considered provided the minimum "degree of comfort," and at which he Is content to continue to produco and reproduceY And is it not because the Court thinks such reductions m tho "standard ot living" or "degree of comfort" hot desirable, or at least detrimental to the interests of the .community as a whofcy that it granted the initial Increase th wages? If that be so then oh. what grounds, moral or economic, legal or .ogical, can Judge Heydon now declare that once having had an increase m wages, should the augmentation ( f prices annul any benefit intended hv the Court that the workers should eni joy, the workers have ho right to make an immediate further appeal to .the Court With nil du«i deferenco to the legal knowledge of Judge Heydon, and all other Judgia. there Is not one that can show any Just cause for such a deliverance. Yet binding tho workers to continue to work under an award for a specific term of time lays lum open to be brought bask with a hump (m price) to tho point at which he has already convinced the Judge making the award, it is Impossible for him to live m that "degreo of comfort" which the Court admits is his just right • • '• Judge Hcydon's homily on the living Wage, though it could not well help being highly Interesting, unfortunately; does not carry us 'try far. As we have said, It leaves tho subject "Jn wandering mazes lost." It Is surely quite plain to even the tyro m economics that If tho coat of living Increases subsequently to an increase m wages, tho worker is just where i.o was, and that nil hla trouble and expenso lv appealing to tho Court has j left him "no forrarder." if ho may not appeal for ;t further and Immediute i readjustment, us ail agreements pre- ! elude him doing. We are arguing here j from the point of view of the .Judg<i nnd of those who bellevo the Arbltra- j tion Court can settle tho question ot ; Ix»bor unrest. We need not say that we are not under any such delusion, j We clearly that an appeal to t.;.> Court for a further increment ot wages would be rout In tne markets by a "further rise In the price of commo. dltics, and therefore if such further appeal be not made. or. IF IT BE MADK. the whole Ideal of a "basic yrage," which was to enable the worker to do so much is subverted and rendered null and void. • • • How arbitration awards nnd minimum wages acts isalat' tho pluto push ond their middlemen allies Instead of the worker's is well Illustrated In thu following extract from a speech of j^ c j r Hurdle's m the House ot Commons recently. Kelr Hardle wild: The Minimum Was*. Act which passed this House a f«w weeks ago meant an increase In tho cost of coal-getting of twopence per ton. What haa happened? Already In the city of Loudon ike consumer Is told that because o' the Minimum Wage Act the price of c«mvl 1» permanently Increased by two shillings and sixpence per ton. It will be seen from the above that the increase m the cost of commodities following upon an Jncrenjjo In wa«c*a Is not peculiar to New Zealand or Australia. It is tho aame In Britain and elsewhere. Hut surely ".he reductload abaurdum Its r«aehed In the Mliutng utterance of our orudite Judgra: It must, however, oe remembered that the living w*_*« is tho ethical wage and often represents a

gift by the community to the worker m excess of the actual value of his work, made because such actual value, would not keep him m proper conditions.. How is it possible for a community to pay the workers more than the -value of their labor and continue to keep out of the bankruptcy court? With individual workers, such as directors ot companies and unnecessary bosses, the thing may be and is done, at the expense of, and as a burden upon, other workers, but with the workers as a class the thing cannot be done. It is an economic impossibility which must be evident even to the legal befogged brain of an Arbitration Court Judge. His Honor tells us that a "living wage" is an "ethical wage." If by "ethical" his Honor means "usage"' or "custom," then we accept his statement; but if by "ethical" he means ih harmony with moral principles, according to' the precepts of morality, which must mean that the return to the laborer shall be according not to what it costs him to live, but a fair equivalent to the wealth produced by bis labor, then he is stating that which is not true. But with' all its shortcomings and obvious incorrect knowledge of economic questions, his Honor's deliverance will be helpful m getting the rank and file of the workers to see the cat.