THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1924.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19067, 12 January 1924, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES SATURDAY, JANUARY 12, 1924.

THE ALLIANCE OF LABOUR. At odd intervals the Alliance of Labour exhibits the keenest interest in arbitration. It is rather unfortunate, however, that its interest is uniformly displayed in the form of destructive criticism. Speaking generally, the. Alliance is composed of unions and organisations which either have no direct concern in arbitration or, else desire to see the system abolished. So far the great mass of arbitration unions have given the Alliance of Labour a wide berth and have not been particularly impressed by the fulminations of the Alliance leaders. An open conference of Labour organisations, convened by the Alliance, has been held in Wellington this week and it is significant that while it claimed to represent the views of 61,000 workers the delegates were singularly unrepresentative of labour at' large. The Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was represented, but railway workers do not invoke the Arbitration Court *to settle their wages claims. The Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association was also represented and its members are in a similar position to that occupied by the railway servants with the exception that, as will be remembered, the right of the Association to affiliate with the Alliance is not recognised by the Government. A delegate attended the conference representing the Otago District Alliance of Labour and another represented the Canterbury district, but these delegates are waterside officials in each case and, as such We members of the Alliance. The anaffiliated unions seem, however, to have been not sufficiently interested in the conference to seek representation. It was a foregone conclusion in the circumstances that the conference would once again impeach the Arbitration Court and denounce all its works. The resolution that was passed on the subject, however, defeats its purpose by the extravagance of its language and the nnsoundness of ita* assertion. The closing words of the resolution are as follows: For the reason that the Court of Arbi- ‘ tration refused the workers an opportunity of stating their case in favour ot an increase in wages, whereas it afforded the employers every opportunity of prosecuting their case in favour of reduction in wages, this conference impeaches the impartiality of the court as at present constituted and declares that the court has forfeited all claim to the confidence of the workers. • The Court was agreeable to the workers stating a case in favour of an increase in wages, and informed the Alliance of this fact on December 7 last, this decision being conditional only on an agreement by the Employers’ Federation to present the other side. /The Federation was, however, unfavourable to the proposal. Its refusal was based on various grounds, included among them being that the matter had been fully discussed, and that the question was only raised at the eleventh hour by the Alliance (twenty-six days before the expiry of the legislation). The attitude of the Employers’ Federation has formed the subject of a long controversy in the Wellington newspapers, between the secretary of the Alliance and the assistant-secretary of the Federation. Without endorsing the employers’ attitude towards the discussion of the subject by the Court, it must be conceded that the Legislature contemplated a return to the old method bf fixing wages in consideration of the facts presented in < ~cu dispute, and the Federation emphasises this point by suggesting in a letter to the Alliance that “the proper method of dealing with wages is now to raise the question in connection with any applications for new awards.” The Federation complains that the Alliance entered the arena only when the fight was over and the combatants had disappeared, and it was then useless to issue a challenge and accuse the combatants of cowardice. An accusation against the Court of having refused to give the workers an opportunity of urging increased wages while “it afforded the employers evei’y opportunity of prosecuting their case in favour of reduction of wages” is so obviously unfair and incorrect that it destroys any influence a fair and reasonable resolution might have had. Whatever else the Arbitration Court may have done it has never shown favouritism to one side or the other in the settlement of the issue. To suggest otherwise is simply absurd. The various pronouncements by the Court, including its latest one, which we publish this morning, relative to the rent controversy, reveal a scrupulous desire to deal fairly with ail aspects of the wages question.