THE INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20380, 11 April 1928, Page 5

THE INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE.

M) Tffft EDITOR. Sir, — Tho admirable address delivered by tho Prime Minister at tho opening of the industrial Conference in Wellingon should commend itself to every fair-minded citizen, Mr Coates truly said: “In both private and public enteiprise it is essential. if the best results are to bo obtained, that there should bo complete understanding and conlidenco between all concerned. It is vitally important that every citizen of New Zealand should understand those facts.” How far the conference will bo able to assist towards an elucidation of the knotty problems involved cannot bo known until it has completed its labour. There is, however, strong evidence visible in the addresses already delivered of a tendency to draw conclusions from a far too narrow circle or viewpoint. This is quite naturally accounted for by tho immensity and complexity of tho subject. An individual can express himself only as his judgment prompts him, and, as tho different angle from which the subject can no viewed gives different conceptions, it will not bo before all tho essential facts are presented that a sound opinion about remedies can bo arrived at. Before condemning the Arbitration Court, it would be wise to consider and reflect upon tho industrial conditions that gave rise to tho establishment of the court. Disputes which could not bo settled without resorting to a strike were then, as they are now, confined to two main issues, conditions of employment and remuneration, both of which are of an involved and highly technical character. Tho public, which is wholly unacquainted with the technical side, assumes that tho dispute is one between labour and capital. That, however, is a complete fallacy, as is also the notion that tho settlement of the dispute can be solved by an agreement between employees and employers. Wages, which are roally the main point in dispute, cannot be arbitrarily deter- ' mined by tho will power of the employer, who is in continuous competitive conflict with other employers producing similar commodities, tho price of which is solely determined by the consumer. This fact is lost sight of in tho complexity of the subject. Tho buyer is always the primary determinant of prices, and ‘‘nominal wages ” are the primary determinant of the cost of production. From these two conditions there is no escape. The manufacturer, who is the wholesale buyer, has constantly to exercise his judgment between wholesale prices of raw material and tho cost of labour involved in producing tho finished commodity, and his constant aim is to keep his expenses down in both directions, that is a perfectly sound and legitimate course to pursue, seeing that it is tho system of competition, over which he has no control, that determines both the price of material and tho wages of labour. His own share is derived from the margin of profit accruing. What we have to observe and reflect upon hero is tho fact that tho system and conditions which determine prices take no consideration of value of either material or labour in relation to their intrinsic worth. Everybody knows that tho price of material will rise if tho supply is scarce, and will fall if the supply increases, and that minimum wages are only prevented from falling to zero by the cost of living which operates quite independently of the wages hxed by tho Court of arbitration. in what respect, then, does the operation ot the court act injuriously, seeing that its function is purely judicial m deciding whether an industry can carry an increase in wages or not '! The employers of labom have the same right to bring their case before the court, and demand a readjustment in a wage award if they can piuduco evidence wnich shows that the margin of profit has diminished or disappeared altogether. In that caso the function of the court would be to restore, by readjustment, the relative discrepancy. To tost the ability of the court to effect this readjustment is clearly the course open to all employers who have a real grievance to complain of, and tho remedy therefore lies in their own hands to use the court for their own protection. In seeking for a solution of the labour problem, we reduce and simplify its complexity when we recognise that the entire industrial system exists for no other purpose than to produce tangible commodities for human consumption. The only thing that counts here is production. An individual who is not productive has no value in this system. Hence, it becomes perfectly clear that all remuneration —to use a correct term, and sweep away the accursed word “ wages ” —should be based upon the personal skill displayed in aid of an increased production. There is no such thing now as individual production of a complete oornmolity. Each person performs only a part necessary to complete the whole of a single article which embraces primary production, manufacture, transportation, commerce, and finance; and co-operation between these five divisions forms a preliminary step in the solution of the problem. We aim at an equitable remuneration for all who are indispensable in production, but an equitable remuneration can never bo obtained under a system controlled by supply and demand. What we require is that production should form the basis of all remuneration and that prices paid by * the consumer should automatically bo determined by the cost of production.—l am, etc;, W. SIVEBTSKN. April D.