ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20316, 26 January 1928, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

EFFECT OF ABOLITION. DR BELSHAW SUPPORTS RETENTION. SYSTEM REQUIRES PERFECTING. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, January 25. “ If compulsory arbitration is abolished as a preliminary to an attack on wages an industrial conflict is inevitable. Our arbitration system has its weaknesses, but they do not justify its abolition." These sentiments were expressed by Dr H. Belshaw, professor of economics at Auckland University College, this morning, when he reviewed the remarks made by Professor A. H. Tocker, of Canterbury College, at Hobart last week. In his interview, Dr Belshaw necessarily confined his comment to generalities, but he recorded his concise opinion upon the merits of the Arbitration Court as a mediator between employer and worker, and ventured the suggestion that strikes had been reduced since the establishment of the court.

” Those who would abolish the principle of compulsory industrial arbitration,” he said, ” lay two main charges against the court—first, it is stated that it maintains wages at an unduly high level: secondly, that it shackles industry and prevents that elasticity which is desirable for industrial progress. It is argued that m consequence of these factors costs are maintained at a high level, and a marked disparity exists between prices in ‘ sheltered ’ industries (mainly manufacturing) and ‘ unsheltered industries (mainly agricultural), prices in the latter case being determined by conditions overseas. It is suggested that free collective bargaining be substituted for compulsory arbitration." “ In reply to the contention that the present price disparity is due to the Arbitration Court it is sufficient to point out: (a) That the disparity is world-wide in extent, afid is due to forces which are generally operative, and are not purely local in significance. Is the price disparity in the United Kingdom and the United States due to the fact that there is no system of compulsory arbitration? (b) That the disparity can be sufficiently explained by the gross expansion of overhead costs (see Bulletin No. 33 of Canterbury Chamber of Commerce), attributable to post-war over-capitalisation, the anomalous system of company taxation, the increase in distributing charges due to the inflation of site rents, the increase in the number of retail distributors, and the increase in the rates charged for loams. In short, the influence of the Arbitration Court is far from being the main factor in the situation.”

“ In reply to the second criticism, while it is agreed that the arbitration system is not sufficiently elastic, this does no* provide adequate grounds for its abolition. The result of abolition will be either weak trade unionism or strong trade unionism in any particular trade. In the former case there is the grave danger of the growth of sweated conditions in industry. Can we face this with equanimity? In the latter case the experience of the United Kingdom and other countiies on the freedom of the employer is likely to be at least as effective as at present. “ The assumption that collective bargaining will necessarily make for a more elastic system and will make easier a system of ‘ payment by results ’ is completelv erroneous. If compulsory arbitration is abolished as a preliminary to ail attack on wages, an industrial conflict is inevitable. Can we balance the highlyproblematical gains against this? “It is true that there have been strikes under the court, but to_ say that for this reason the court has failed in its main object is, I think, incorrect. It is clear that the court has considerably reduced the number of industrial conflicts, and this being true it has achieved its purpose. “ Admittedly, our arbitration system has its weaknesses, but these do not justify its abolition, especially when an alternative has already been tried and found wanting, and when the whole trend of development elsewhere is away from laissez faire. Our aim should be the perfection of the p~esent system, making toward greater elasticity and variety. It is significant that by far the majority of both employers and trade unionists desire not abolition but amendment. Can we afford .to leap backward into the dark? ”