BOODLE'S BRAND Of UNIONISM

NZ Truth, Issue 441, 6 December 1913, Page 4

BOODLE'S BRAND Of UNIONISM

The Arbitration Artifice.

It would seem from the action of the Employers' Federation m turning down the offer made last week by the Federation 6£: labor', to submit the question at present m dispute, between the wharf laborers and the shipping companies, to 'the arbitration of Siv Joshua Williams is an earnest of their intention to force the Arbitration Court upon the Waterside Workers. Whother they are wise m furthering this at- ! tempt or are likely to be successful many, other than tha friends jof labor, will Uoubt,- So for [as "Truth"- can gather, the offer m question cannot be taken inany way as indicating a weakening m the attitude of the men. To all appearances the locked-out watersiders are as solid as ever, and the news of support from Australia is such as to confirm them m their determination to hold jut. We cannot think that the*-,.. Employers' Federation wilt be so suicidal as. 'to treat lightly the weighty; words contained In Mr. Hughes's very temperate and fairminded summary ot tlio position and his suggested way out. ■ : ■■" ' •■:.- ■ -ri ■■'"•'■ " * ' '. Many members of the general public are anxious to discover the reason for the growing objection of tho New Zealand worker to the . Arbitration Act For many years this particular Act had been considered, his blessing as it was; certainly his boast. How comes it "that he now , condemns it as his ban? Similar questions might be put to the employer of labor. He, and his politioal supporters, fought this same Arbitration Act for all they were worth. .For twenty years they professed to see m It the ban and blight of industrial prosperity. Today, it is to thorn as tho sUndow of a great rock m the weary land! Whence this change, or might we i>ut it, exchange of 'attitude on the part of the employer and employee? It seems to "Truth" the causo of tho chango In the latter is also responsible for th« change m the former — growth of economic knowledge. That very economic education which has opened the eyes of the more intelligent of tho workers to the weaknesses and fallacies of our present compulsory Arbitration Act, has brought illumination to the lords of the Purse that what, from the workers' viewpoint is a weakness nnd fallacious, is for their purposes strength and equity combined. Thus the employers see that their interest lies' i v retaining and enforcing rocistration of unions under the Act as long as they possibly can. This task they would have found much easier had the Judge prosidiner iver the Arbitration Court during th<i halfdozen years been more sympathetic m his attitude towards Labor. As it is. despite the hanging back of tho older Trades 1 Union leaders, we fear the Employers' FeOemien has shot its bolt — and missed. Kor over twenty years we had iv thr» country a Liberalliabor Government, which !« credited with passing much bcaeflcient lcglsJatlon on behalf d tl;c workers of this Dominion. And yet. if the Report of cur recent Royal Commission be true, along with tho returns shown In the various tables published In our Year Book and Census Returns, it would appear we have beon but following a will-o'-tho-wlsp." In order to better appreciate ami understand tho point at which wo huve arrived, lot us take a glance back itt iho happenings recorded In our industrial history of the Jast few years. ♦■• • • Prior to tho ri-nownl fry certain sections of tho workers of the u*so of tho .strike weapon tho paid pen-pushers of *he pi uto press were never weary of declaring that the Arbitration Act was all tor the benefit of the worker; that though tho employer frequently found it pressing very heavily upon him. ho, with meuk abnegation, for the sake of industrial peace, subordinated p?rHonal interests to Uuaso of tho commonweal. For such disinterested magnanimity on the part of Pluto It 1h to b<! hoped the proletarian plugs were duly thankful. ' • • • '■ A chango came over tho spirit of their dream, however, when, first, theslaughtermen, and then other trade*, tired of tho law's delay, decided to^so m for, to cull H by a phmso that hits become common of late, "direct action," and v unlifcd howl of execration roKe from the ?>lute prcwj—Llbcral nod Tory jvUlsp. AH the tricks of tho old HOphlßts wore rehearsed and pressed mio Hcrvtcc In many a llatulont leader m thy vain effort to make tlic'r chopped lojfic nnd c{»nk«^rou« nrjtumc»t# j*ni*j» utMHit'r, AUi»rnnt*ly th^ rceaicl* tmnt worker wnv coaxttt, cox«u«(l and cudgelled. On tl»» f*trik«> <*p(rlt wprcadmg. tho organa of Fat Hew Into a fever «f hate, threw discretion to the wind**

I ceased to dissemble, and, while the i various cases were still sub" judice, with indecent haste declared that the ; utmost penalty of ' the law should be visited upon the rebels. Nay more, the Arbitration Act, they declared, would have to be amended, and amended by increasing the penalty for a breach committed by the men, to .such an extent as to make further striking almost impossible. It was so amend- [ ed, not once nor twice, but the number of strikes .steadily increased. It lias again to be amended— we venture to assert with a like result .■■• " •- ' : o ■'■ " •• ' , • ■ Is it not passing strange that an act which, according to the touts and tools of the Shipping ami other Trusts, was" passed m special behoof of the \vorker, and "invariably adminis tered sympathetically to Labor, 11 should, after s6 many years' trial, be m such parjouscase as t6 need ail the argurhentative artillery of Fat to impress upon ite beneficiary its peculiar vir- | tiies for him? is it 'V not even more ! strange that hireling editors, who usually lock up their conscisnee before taking up their pens, should feel | impelled by such solicitude for the worker as to make hysterical appeals for the arming of the law with a heavier bludgeon, m order to coerce the same worker into an uhdsrstanding of what is good for him? Apparently the\ ; tree 1 is no longer known by its fruits! : :: : '- •'■ : " " :: '■••■ -- ;; ' :: -■ . If it be true that this Act is principally/ it not wholly, m the interests of the proletarian plug und the wilful fellow wiil have no more of it, simply because, In his ignorance, he doesn't know a good thing when he's got it, why should his employer bother? Are the latter's returns from "capital invested 1 ' so "satisfactory that he does not wish an opportunity to improve l-them? TO are afraid the solution is not to- bft found m that direction. , Is it not rather that the employer's "slim" objections to tho Act, and his reiterated assertion that it worked out all to tbe advantage of Labor, were only parts of the pU*y, m order to gull the workers into clinging to non-es-sentials, „ and to continue to waste time chasing similar wiHs-o'-th'-wisp? Tiiis .oxpianation of the employer's conductrhas been for lpng very palpa.bleirto.usiand, m supp«frt df. it, be ,lt noted that, among their" .class, the Captains of industry make no secret of the boon compulsory arbitration has been to them. Not so long ago they were so indiscreet as to allow a , prying Yankee pressman into, their confidence, who, m keeping with the traditions of American Journalism, on his return to his own country, made haste to "give them away." Thft pressman referred, to was Mr. Charles E. Russell author of f'The Uprlsing'bf the Many." who. m writing of »w Zealand's industrial conditions,, vett-r---riris to the Act, salys;— , ••■'■\ : Manufacturers, 5 wholesale and retail merchants, employers great, and small, have again and again assured me that if they had' Vn-s limited power they would not chango the system. Why should' they? Read agajn the figures and percentages of theyearnings of; the workers and the profits of the employers given m the Official Year Book,, and. tell us If one can find therein any reason w hy the exploitIng classes, should be other than satisfied with things as they are? ; ■■ • • ■ • . ■ . . Yet what\ could we expect? Can a man gather grapes of thorns? We grant that Trades Union leaders and Parliamentary representatives honestly believed compulsory aroitraUon would- be beneficial to the workers a class. And though, to those more deeply versed, m economics, such a hope revealed -woeful ißnorance of the "iron law of wages," still they lod according to" their lights and In all sincerity. So far as "Truth" ia concerned it had never had any doubt as to the category to which this? particular form of Arbitration belongs. It knew that as soon as economic conditions had "evened things up" it would produce "more cry than wool." How could it possibly bo otherwise? ■ Is tt not .-part of. tho "iron law" that a rlae m wafics 4s met by an equalising counter move on tho part of the employers? Increased production is secured by, improved, machinery or "sppeding up" of tho worker, or the cost of the production of a commodity Is reduced by some other method, ehietiy by adulteration. But those and oth* r methods failing: of thoir purpose, ahoiß Is still left another way out fur tho employers. Tue tnereaj-wu cost of production Is finally, and. often, more thnrttully met, by an ndvanoc on tho price of |he finished commodity whon placed on the market. Tho present Compulsory ArbUmtlon Act cannot help tho worker here. It is useless to securo and retain for him the very henefllH It is supposed to decree. And this must b«j tho breaking point of all compulsory Arbitration Acts whlct rob tho worker of tho right to refuse to work at a wnpe and under conditions not acceptable to. him s and his feUpw-\vorktT3, ■ •;> ,-■•.. ... • '. ....,.....•.,,.;, ; There is another .-'.point. Because a number of workers refuse Co refflutor under tho Arbitration Court It mual not be concluded that they are, jpso facto, opposed to- all forms of arbitration. Arbitration presupposes the arbitrators meeting on an equal footing This ono essential condition Is wanting m our present Arbitration Court which consists of a Supremo Court judge, ns chairman, and a -reprotcntatlvo uppolntfid by tho employers and another apoointod by the workers It will bo admitted tlmt on any nutation comlns before such a tribunal tho oOrls aro against tho worker. To put It plainly, tho employers have a two to ono majority from tho Jump.' Thero la no wonder then that the employers ar« willing to spond and bo aponi to retain such a atratejfic advantage ov W their common enemy, and thero Is just as little to wonder at In tho workers nu' tin*? up a strenuous rtght to ff ot ou*t and keep out, ot Ha toila. • • • Tradori Union leaders have B one to the Arbltruiion Court* ttn d boforu Wages Board*, and Conciliation Councils, anil argned, not that mo worker 1h ttlwnys and necejusartly underpaid' not that the commoUKy ho prodVCOa hatf Increuisvd In value; not thai employers' profits, through the workers 1 Increased power of production, have been considerably augnioutod. and that the worker is entitled, tiiorcfore, at least to a share, If not t i\\, j n (j UC h enhunowd rciturn. No, Instend, thoy Vittvts ftt-Rticd that th« cost or living ha* Increaatd, and In ordor thai the •*BUtnU«rd of living" whoultl rjot be lowered. U Is necessary to hicreaao iho workers' vfagc#! Not tluu ho may get a m«rc viiuliablc return for tho labor of hl» brawn nnd bntln. but Himply that i\n may hand n nil htwn through tho or< f .inury ehrtnnpJj* of trade for thr? old 'mandurd ot lhirp. ' on such |>l«si advance**' In wukoo hay« been liiuo and ugaia grunted, but is

the worker, relatively, any better off? Not he. House rents immediately make another rise, the cost of transport is increased (Down, U.S.S. Company!), and the cost of tho necessaries of life again go up m sympathy. Thus the worker is still "m wandering mazes lost," and somewhat wage-worn and weary of it"all. • ■ • ' ■» • ■ ■ In all cases of arbitration between the wealth maker and the wealth taker as to the portion of the wealth that should go as his "share" to the. producer of it ail, the latter is necessarily at a disadvantage from the very opening of the case. Th^re is no getting away from this position. As things are to-day it must be so, so long as the want of the worker is pitted m opposition to the surplusage of plute. This is a handicap from which \ the' worker cannot be relieved. If he is then forced into a court where the friends of Fat are two to oue against him, his position is still further compromised. If m addition ho id robbed of the right of refusal to accept the finding of such a court he is a slave m very sooth. ..-.-•,'■ • . ■ ■ • But, as perfectly equitable conditions cannot be found, it is incumbent upon all who "would seek industrial peace and pursue it, to nnd a form of arbitration which most perf ectly approximates thereto. This "Truth" submits can. be best reached py the representatives of employers and employed meeting at short periods m a round table conference and . debating their differences frankly. As. a proof of this contention it is subinittufl as It is admitted that the last agreement secured for the waterside workers by the Federation of Labor by the method herein and now advocated was the best agreement ever received by any body of unskilled workers m this Dominion. As to tne making the terms of such agreements binding, it is as well to admit that no power or penalty can render such inviolate. The only way out of the difficulty is to have agreements made for shorter terms. If conditions of labor are good no worker or body of wbrkors will flagrantly outrage the terms under which such conditions are onjoyed. If on the other hand the employer should be the transgressor— and Government returns show him to be so m three cases out of every four —the {fact tltat tlio agreement Is adjusted at short periods will obviate t**.e necessity of a cessation of work unless m the most criminal and wanton «>f transgressions. Then the periods of "peaceful occupation" resulting from such a policy would provide the workers with the opportunity' of organising more scientifically, and this with a concurrent ■' increase m education would enhance considerably not only Labor's power of resistance but of progression. It eeeuis to us that Parliament must took to itself if it would retain, the respect and loyalty of the; working class. There can be no denying tfie fact that such respect and loyalty have been sorely tried during the past decade, and more especially during the regime of the present Square Deal Ministry. We 'would, point out to bur parliamentarians that much of what they hayeidone m the past, and from which so much was expected, has turned out but Dead Sea fruit. The r"ank and file of the workers by sad experience are being forced to recognise how little better off .they are than they were <teu or fifteen years ago, dosplto your many beneficent Acts of Parliament. Their "standard; of living" is In danger of being lowered, increased productivity notwithstanding, and that too at J»n ever Increasing ratio.. Is it any wonder, we ask them, that there are murmurs of- dissatisfaction \vith the slow movement of the. parliamentary machine and that the more intelligent | and brainy of the workers are seeking m other directions the help so long overdue?