THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1907. THE ARBITEATION BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13997, 2 September 1907, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1907. THE ARBITEATION BILL.

Although the Minister of Labour has declared that the Bill he has introduced for the amendment of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act is to be passed during the present session of Parliament we are inclined to think, with Mr Arnold, that the; chances of its being enacted in its present form are somewhat slender. The bitter 'criticism to which the Bill is being subjected by representative unionists in different ,parts of the colony certainly suggests that the measure mil. be met with stubborn opposition on the floor of the House from members whose possession of their seats is more or less dependent upon the support of the organised workers. Tp some slight

extent it seams to us that the objec- ' tions which lra.vo been urged against 1 tlio Bill may bo justified. No pro- 1 posal contained in the measure, so ' far as the summary we have received j of its provisions enables us to 1 judge, is so indefensible, however, ' as tho important clause Mr Millar lias announced his intention of adding to it—the Olauk) which '■ is designed to compel unions to i devote portions of their funds to ' tho specific objects of aiding unem- ' ployed and incapacitated members. : A trades union is oiily fulfilling a ' legitimate purpose if it mates provision for relieving its sick and for assisting thoso of its members who may be debarred, through stress of < circumstano?s, from earning their livelihood; but the principle that a union, like any other organisation which is already registered under the law of the land, shall be at ' liberty to apply its funds in whatever way it thinks best, so long as this is not inconsistent with tlio terms of tile law governing it at the time of its incorporation, must surely be regarded as unassailable. The argument by which the Minister's proposal is supported is that, in the absence of some such provision, such fluids may bo accumulated in the hands of the unions as will constitute a menace to industrial peace. But if the Bill is to be effective in the prevention of industrial warfare—and it must bo acknowledged that the proposal it contains for the attachment of the wages of workers who infringe the provisions of the Arbitration Act is calculated enormously to increase the effectiveness of the law in this respect,—the suggestion that unions may employ their funds i in the promotion and maintenance of strikes should not excite very much apprehension. It is somewhat surprising that the proposal for the abolition of Conciliation Boards and the substitution of Industrial Councils for them should have been received with so ranch dissatisfaction by unionists. Mr Millar has some reason to complain, too, of their treatment of this feature of his Bill. Several weeks have elapsed since he made it known that he contemplated the creation of industrial tribunals constructed after the model of the Wages . Boards of Victoria—and though he says he disapproves of the Wages Board system the proposal, in his Bill seems to follow it closely in principle,—but the first note of discontent that the unionists have sounded publicly concerning this design, lias been reserved until the measure embodying it is before Parliament, . The main ground of objection to. the proposal seems to be that, if it is adopted, the effect will be to force three workmen in a trade to meet an equal number of their employers to settle with them, with the. assistance of an independent chairman, the rates of payment and the conditions of employment in their industry.. But wherein does this involve the workers in any hardship or unfairness? A Christchurch unionist alleges that the smaller uuioiis would be prejudiced since they.would have to nominate three of their best men to sit on the Council and would have to fall back on three men of inferior ability to represent them before'the-Council. But, if we understand the proposal aright, this objection rests upon a misconception. As the members of the Council, with the exception, of the chairman, will all be experts in their particular trade thpe will be no occasion for the union or the employers to be represented before the Couucil. It will be in rare cases only that evidence will be neoessary. ylnd this will be one of the main advantages of'Mr Millar's proposal, that the settlement of a dispute will be facilitated and cheapened, since the Council will be perfectly tent to settle a dispute without the assistance of the advocates and witnesses who appear before the Conciliation Boards under the present system. The proposal to empower the Arbitration Court to .order non-unionists to contributes towards the expenses incurred by the unionfin their trade in securing an award, in the benefits of which they participate, is probably the most important, as it is certainly the most novel, in the Bill. It does not surprise its to find that it is not regarded by unionists with unmixed favour. The probable effect of the enactment of Mr Millar's Bill will, it is generally recogiii&ed, bo to bring about'universal unionism. It might have been supposed that a. provision which would produce such a. result as this would be acceptable to unionists. It would appear, however, that nothing short of unconditional statutory preference of employment to unionists will be satisfactory to many of them. They do not desire a. system under which all competent workers in a trade will practically be compelled to become members of the union. What they wish is a system that will admit of tlio unions now in existence being turned into close corporations, of which the members would have a statutory right of employment to the exclusion of such workmen in their trade as the unions might, from whatever cause, refuse to admit to their ranks. But to the adoption of such a system, as that the public wilt" never assent. If preference of employment to unionists should ever be granted by parliamentary enactment it will be subject to conditions under which competent workmen will be entitled to demand admission to the union ill their trade. And in practice the Oittcome of this would not be very , different from the result which may be anticipated from the enactment of Mr Millar's proposal if it should be passed. Nothing in the Bill now before the House has aroused more violent opposition than the provision that officers of Unions must belong to the industries with which their unions are respectively connected. But wc , suspect that this opposition is largely personal. It has been expressed, at anyra-te, by men who, being themselves the paid officers of several unions, are directly interested ill the continuance of existing conditions. , It is claimed that the practice under which unions employ outsiders as their organisers and secretaries is necessary in order that workers actually engaged in industries may be protected from the risk of their being ■ singled' out for dismissal from their i situations in their trade in, the event

of the unions in which they niight hold office coming into conflict with the employers. It is difficult to say whether there.is. much or little or any justification for the suggestion that workmen who take 'an active part in tho conduct of their union are really liable to suffer in their employment on that account. In some industries no fear of such consequences operates to induce the unions to appoint persons from beyond their ranks to act as their secretaries, and it cannot be said in those cases either that the unions are more indifferently conducted than arc those with imported offioers or that the conditions under which the trades are carried 011 are specially unsatisfactory. On the other hand, it is certain that where friction exists between the unions and the employers in a trade it is frequently' due to the meddlesome interference between masters and servants of the members of the agitator class who act as secretaries of unions.