INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17426, 21 September 1918, Page 12

INDUSTRIAL WORLD.

; NEWS AND NOTES. ; Bt XH* HON. J. T. Paul, M.L.C. I TO CORRESPONDENTS. ""Labour Supporter."—Noted below. J. R. K.—'Will try next week. "A TRAGIC FARCE." The cables announced last week that the' New South Wales Board of Trad© had decided thai the living wage should be £3 per week. It is certainly the highest amount yet laid down as a living wage in the parent State, but with the present price of commodities it must leavo a margin on the iwrong side of the ledger in many a working man's home.

. Commenting oh the progress of the hearing,: the cunrent Australian Worker makes some caustic comment under the above heading:— "Barrister Adrian Knox, appearing for the . exploiters and profiteers, has produced statistics, calculations, and arithmetical deductions to prove that the wage should bo fixed at £2 16s 4jjd a week (keep you eye on the three-farthings), while Solicitor Can-tor,.-on behalf of the unions, professes to be firnfly of the opinion that the amount should be 332 18s 2£d (watch that ha'penny, for, obviously, it's terrifically important—so important, in fact, that if it were ignored the whole social structure might collapse' and smother us in its 'ruins). "At anyrate, tho whole inquiry now boils down to an argument over a matter of Is 9|d! Possibly tho president, getting his £60 a week, and with no inquisitive people prying into his cupboard, will split the difference, and everybody will be satisfied, and: everything- in the garden will be lovely."

s THE TAILORING TRADE. In further reterence to recent developments in the tailoring trad© Mr R. (J. Wil-

"In your notes of Saturday last, in commenting on my letter, you say regarding the Nelson dispute:—"l"ho award embodies .without alteration tho recommendations ol the Conciliation Council, so that it would appear Jtrom the records that Mr Wilson's organisation agreed to the inclusion of the team system.' i 9 absolutely contrary to fact. At the first hearing of the tailors' dispute by the Arbitration 'Court, held in Auckland, the court declined to make an award until such time as the dispute had been heard in tho four centres. When the dispute was before the Conciliation Council in Nelson the parties, being unable to come to any satisfactory settlement, agreed to accept the award that was to be made in connection with the dispute in the four centres, and as no one at that time knew whait the award would be, how can you say that my organisation agreed to the team system, which all who have any knowledge of the tailoring trade knows has been strenuously opposed by the operative tailors for over 20 years." I interpret Mr Wilson's disclaimer to mean

that the words "It would appear from the records that Mr Wilson's organisation agreed to fee inclusion erf the ' team system' are contrary to fact." What do the records show? Thai the awards which cover the chief centres were made on December 15, 1917. That the Nelson award, which the Arbitration Court says in its memorandum emifodies without alteration the agreement of the parties - was ' made on March 22, ' 1918. And I said:—"-It would appear from the records that Mr Wilson's organisation; agreed to the inclusion of the 'team system.' " And most certainly it does appear so. Mr Wilson's explanation is very welcome. The second portion of Mr Wilson's -letter refers to the position of the trade in the Westland district. He points out that as no Vfirma in Westland were working the " team, system" when the agreement was arrived at, tie proviso can have no elfect. That is eminently satisfactory. Mr Wilson'b letter concludes thus:— , "Then you congratulate your own federation; on its successful resistance of the team aystem. It seems to me that instead of lesisting you have made an unconditional surrender in agreeing to the reiritroduction of a system which was in force over 20 years aj;o. Your new conditions provide | that there shall be no limitation to the jouineywomen who may be employed with journeymen, provided that not more than one-journey woman shall work with any one , journeyman under this clause.' You will certeinly have a very hard task to convince ahypne acquainted with the industry that this, is not the team system and in rather a bad form, as it will lend itself to all sorts of abases, not the least being that of speed-ing-up. I rather think that the;'court clause in our own award is the better one. In conclusion, let me say that while you would give; all the credit for the betterment of conditions and. wages to the Tailoresses' Federation,. you overlook the fact that shop tailpresses under my federation's jurisdictioiK have .enjoyed the privileges you now seek; for the past eight months, and my members; are pleased to know that their efforts on 'behalf of the journeymen and jourieywomen ,are now to prove beneficial to the Taik>resses' Federation." Oil reflection I think Mr Wilson will admit

that: he not dealing fairly with the merits of the question' he discusses. He professes to think; that the court's clause is better than-, the one recently embodied by agreement in the Auckland award. The court's .clause provides for an unrestricted use of the-toam system except on coats, where the : limitation is four journeywomen to one journeyman. That is, four journeywomen can work with one journeyman, or eight journeywomen with two journeymen, and so on. , TheJemployer. fa given the right, to divide andjsubdivide labour in any way he may deem necessary, subject to the limitation for coais. The provision in the Auckland agreement (now an ajvard) provides that not more than; one journey woman shall work with one journeyman on coats. That means that ; under the court's clause four journeywomen and: one journeyman could work as a team, whereas under the Auckland tailoresses' award only two (a journeywoman and a journeyman) could work together. Mr Wil-£on-?thinks I would have a hard task to persuade anyone acquainted with the industry that; to allow two workers to work on one garment is not the " team system." I think he 'would have a much harder task to persuade any worker that by increasing the a team on one garment the evils were- reduced. The bigger the team the greater the evil, erven if it could be admitted that.' the Auckland tailoresses' agreement countenanced the team system," which it does not.

Again, I assure Mr Wilson that my object ; is to, do justice to all organisations. He directs my attention to the advantages gained for the shop tailoresses in Christchurch eight months ago, the shop-tailoresses of that city being under the jurisdiction of Mr Wilson's organisation. If it comes to measuring the advantages for shop tailoresses under the different federations Mr Wilson should remember that for very many years (until eight-.'months ago) the shop ■tailoresses of Christchurch were working- for a minimum wage which was several shillings per week lower than that received by the shop tailoresses in Auckland, Wellington, or Dunfedin, the awards for whom were not under the .jurisdiction of Mn Wilson's organisation.

My candid opinion is that this discussion would be better left to the organisations themselves, the object of both being to improve the conditions under which their members labour.