THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1949. LABOUR'S CRISIS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27017, 28 February 1949, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1949. LABOUR'S CRISIS

The amendment to the Economic Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, gazetted last week, which authorises the Arbitration Court to make either a standard wage pronouncement or a general order increasing wages, has produced little in the way s of general comment. The principal reason for public unconcern with this new Regulation must be assumed to be a lack of appreciation of its significance. And that is a good enough reason, perhaps, since the public can soon lose itself in the labyrinthine maze of the policy of “ controlled economy ” at its political level. The Regulation, indeed, seems relatively unimportant. Its regl point is that it facilitates the making of general wage orders. This means that the Arbitration Court is less bound to consider, when asked for a wage pronouncement, the effect on workers who, under a general increase, would receive a wage rate above the standard for that class of worker, whereas under a standard rates pronouncement such workers would receive an increase only to the general standard set. The difference in method could scarcely be profound, but it could, ironically, serve further to disturb wage equilibrium, with consequent dissatisfaction to workers in industry, and ’to damage # the rent fabric of stabilisation —bo'th processes which the Government is certainly anxious to avoid.

There remains, in order to put this relatively innocuous Regulation in perspective, an examination of the background. Here the significance of this tinkering, however ineffectually, with the Arbitration Court’s authority assumes a new interest. Early in February, some fifty prominent trades unionists signed a manifesto calling for, among other things, an increase of one shilling an hour or £ 2 a week in wages. This demand followed the action of the Federation of Labour in applying to the Arbitration Court for a standard wage pronouncement of sixpence an hour or £1 a week increase—and, incidentally, of the' employers in calling for a pronouncement on standard wages. The immediate reactions to these applications, and the unionists’ manifesto, are to be noted. First, the amending Regulation appeared. It was accompanied by statements by the Minister of Labour, Mr McLagan, the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Mr Nordmeyer, and the secretary of the • Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr McCombs, all,of whom denied that the gazetting of the new Regulation represented a Left-wing victory in ~ the Labour caucus, and also denying that it had even been caucus. Meanwhile, the Left/was obviously gratified by the development, but officially sile'ht, while the Communist Part*' 1 ’ news-sheet exulted: “The Goveifoment’s action is a victory for,'militant trade unionism. Without the pressure which has been/fexercised the amendment would>not have been made . . .” Simultaneously the Prime Minister ed that figures on income dismissed the •sfase for an increase in wages of £2 a week into the realm of fantasy; while a report circulated that the Federation of Labour had endorsed “in general principle ” the need of a shilling an hour increase in the 7 workers’ wages. This patchwork of applications, affirmations, apostasies and denials is not, perhaps, easy to study. But it is of striking design. It allows for one obvious conclusion, that pressure from the Left has been felt —and has been hastily acknowledged —by the Federation of Labour and by the Government. However technically correct are the protestations of the Ministers that neither the amending Regulation nor a wage increase by £2 a week was considered by the Labour caucus, the fact remains that the Left is demanding this wage increase, and that the Left welcomes the amended Regulation as a victory. It would probably be futile to argue with the Left the destructive nature of its claim for a £ 2 wage increase. It is sufficient to observe that the demand that such an increase should be made without price adjustments can come only from those ignorant of economic facts, or who shrewdly perceive that an increase of this nature would so affect stabilisation and the cost of living as to create chaotic conditions—a statement that has the authority of the Prime Min-

ister. What is unfortunately clear is that the authority' to make statements is about the only authority left to him. With an election a few months off, he is struggling for his political life, along with his Right Labour colleagues—of whom identification becomes increasingly difficult. But the struggle is not an heroic one. It is being fought by methods of appeasement, by retreat and subterfuge. Even the semblance of unity in the Labour movement is wearing thin. Mr Fraser will indeed be fortunate if the party discipline, and fear of an open split, can hold his Government and militant unionism together for the remainder of the year.