THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1908. INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14245, 20 June 1908, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1908. INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION.

The thoughtful speech which was delivered at Wellington on Wednesday night last by the Attorney-general must be geuerally recognised as a scholarly and masterly contribution to the discussion upon the main question of the hour in A'ew Zealand. It may not be possiblo for any one to subscribe absolutely to all tho conclusions which Dr Fjndlay—speaking for himself personally without committing the Government to the acceptance of his view.*—litis formed or the subject of the regulation of wages. It will not, however, be disputed anywhere that he has made at least, with what degree of success we may not yet be in a position to estimate, an honest and determined effort to arrive, at a satisfactory solution of an intricate and vexatious problem. Dr Findlay himself, wo take it, offers tlio opinions he has expressed as tentative only: while ha does not dogmatise on the subject he conveys the impression that he is open to conviction if it can be reasonably argued that the premises he has adopted are unsound or that the deductions he has drawn are erroneous. Upon one point, however, he is perfectly decided and emphatic—namely, that the introduction of a system of profit-sharing, for the .compulsory institution of which the organised unions have occasionally clamoured, would in actual practice ba of quite inappreciable benefit to the working classes. He does not admit that the great bulk of wage-earners are receiving a wage which justifies no increase, for a return prepared by the Registrar-general indicates that the annual earnings of male bread-winners average £94 8s- and those of female breadwinners £42 3s only. These figures are, however, probably misleading. If the wages of juvenile workers have been included in the aggregate earnings shown in the return, as apparently they have, the effect must have been to produce an average result much below that which would accurately represent the annual earnings of adult workers. Moreover, in any computation of the earnings of various classes of workmen, such as agricultural labourers, and of domestic servants, it is necessaiy that allowauco should be made, although it does not seem to have been made in the Registrargeneral's return, for the fact that a proportion of wages takes the form of board and lodging and not of cash. Tho valuo of the figures quoted by Dr Findlay in this connection is apparently affected to some extent by the considerations we have mentioned, and, if our assumption is correct, the average earnings of the adult workers will be sensibly greater than the table indicates. But granted, for the sake of argument, that in the majority of cases the wages received by workers might, as Dr Findlay thinks, "well stand -m increment," the fact remains that the introduction of a "system of profitsharing would prove a disappointing and illusory remedy. All that the Attorney-general says on this point is logical and convincing. We cannot follow him into the details of his closely-reasoned argument, buttressed as it is by a striking array of official figures that enable him to drive his conclusions ■• resistlessly home. He demonstrates, however, by the clearest of proof tliat. it is, as he describes it, ''a pernicious fallacy" to suppose that there is a hoarded-up fund attached to industrial enterprise that should, if justice were done, be distributed equitably among the workers, and that, in fact, tho workers, being, as they suppose, the sole producers of wealth— since it is now denied on their behalf that business ability, to which Dr Findlay assigns its true value, is an agent of production at all,—are cheated out of their rights so long as they are deprived of a share of this fund. Not only does the Attorney-general show that it is a complete mistake to think that there is any large accumulated fund of profits, but he goes further and shows that, even if there were sucn a fund, a system of profit-sharing would almost inevitably break down. But if the effect of the operation of the Arbitration Act has been that the minimum wage prescribed under an award has, as is indisputable, tended to become the standard wage, and if, as must equally be admitted, this has been discouraging to the best workmen, is it not possible that a system can be devised whereby tho prospects of increased remuneration may De offered to the wage-earners and the Arbitration Act..maj; still be main...

turned? Dr Findlay believes it is poss'Wp, and h 0 gives an exceedingly interesting exnositon of the grounds upon which his faith is based. In bis opinion the arbitration system must continue to he a wage-regulator, but ho suggests tho introduction of a double standard by which wages should be regulated. The primary standard would be that of the needs of the worker. Upon this basis, a "needs wage," as Dr Findlay calls it, corresponding to the minimum wage of the present time, would be awarded; and tins wage, he insists, should allowas in practice the minimum wag© does generally allou—for all thoso. conventionnl decencies which are essential to a worker's self-respect. And the Attorney-general would supplement this 'needs wage" by an « Qmikn wage," which should serve as a recognition of the superior intelligence, skill, and industry of the recipients. He proposes, therefore, that some incentive should, under the direction of the Arbitration Court, be offered to workmen to increase their productive capacity and, hy the enhanced efficiency of their labour, to augment their employers' profits. That the present system, docs not stimulate the wagecarners to the full utilisation of their ability he regards as certain, and we do not suppose there can be the slightest doubt that an effect of the operation of a minimum wage lias been to bring the "ca' canny" principle strongly into play in New Zealand. Dr Findlay proposes that an effort shall be made to escape from the levellingdown process that has been at work, and that relief should be sought in a system which should appeal to employers, in that it holds out to them the hope of increased profits, and to the most intelligent and industrious workmen, in that it holds out to them the prospect of increased remuneration. Ul this system, which has been described as "the.premium plan of paying for labour," but which Dr Findlay more conveniently terms "gain-shar-ing," the essential feature is, as he explains, that the time required to do a given piece of work is iixed on the basis of previous experience, and the offer is made to the workman, if he can get the job done in less than this standard time, of a premium for every hour saved in its execution. It is a system, therefore, which proposes that merit shall be recognised by a differential rate of payment. The workman who combines speed with efficiency will receive a wage in excess of that paid to the slow and inefficient; and "the saving in production," as Sehloss, upon whose book Dr Findlay lias relied a good deal for his information, puts it, '"effected by the excess of the efficiency manifested by the employees over a certain standard which forms the basis of the system," supplies the surplus fund that is shared between the employers and the skilled workers. We are somewhat doubtful whether this system, admirably though it has apparently worked in the instances of largo undertakings quoted by Dr Fiudlp.;,-, is satisfactorily applicable to many industries in New Zealand, in which the work that is executed may be said ta consist of a multiplicity of small jobs, and ib is not very easy to see how a standard may readily bo fixed in trades in which the quality, rather than the quantity, of the output is the test of the efficiency of, the worker. We merely, however, .suggest these as points that are worthy of consideration in respect of a, scheme which, if it is entirely applicable to the conditions of this country, certainly present} many attractive features.