ARBITRATION SYSTEM.
DEFEN' ZE AND CRITICISM. VIEW'S OF CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS. f . . CHRISTCHURCH. August 23. Arising out of the less prosperous period we are passing through have come searchings and conjectures as t o causes and in some cases a desire to find a scapegoat on whom the vials of wrath may be emptied.” said Mr F. W. Hobbs (president) at the annual meeting of the Canterbury Employers’ Association this evening.
“To many that scapegoat appears, though, I believe, somewhat unjustly, to be the Arbitration Court,” proceeded the speaker. “The country producer, who today receives about 48 per cent, in excess of what his products obtained in 1914, and has to pay about 63 per cent, increase for what he purchases, raises the loudest voice against the court, and blames it for setting a wage rate which necessitates this 60 per cent, increase ... prices. It is. 1 think, a matter for regret that the Chamber of Commerce bulletins appear to examine only the side of the case which supports the condemnation of the economic results of the Arbitration Act instead of giving that wide investigation from every standpoint which we have a right to expect in a considered publication from such a source. There are, however, factors which do not seem to have been examined, and strong evidence is available which will, I believe, place the Act in a much more favourable light. “The questions on which the Act is now being judger are —(1) its influence on prices and wages, and (2) its effect on our industrial progress,” continued the president, who submitted figures showing that in all the countries without compulsory arbitration the wages have risen considerably more (except for females in Australia) than in Australia and New Zealand which liavLP it. In New Zealand the increase has been appreciably less than anywhere else, indicating that the Arbitration Court, instead of being guilty of granting unnecessarily high wages, has probably been instrumental in keeping those wages lower than would have been the case if no such court had existed.’’ “It will be fair to assume,’’ said Mr Hobbs, “that if the Arbitration Court gave excessive wages and imposed restrictive conditions the cost of living in the Dominion would have gone up to a greater extent than in other countries. The figures lead me to the conclusion that the court is wrongly blamed for the increases in wages and living costs which have occurred. As to the Act as the cause of retardation in industrial development, Mr 1 obbs quoted some figures, the purport of which was that the value of the . utput of industries had increased by 49 per cent, between 1919 to 1925, or 56 per cent, in the industries exclusive of freezing, dairying. and flax, and that the number of workers increased by 37 per cent. He described the abolition of preference to unionists as “almost a universal demand from the country employers.” If preference was abolished, he said, the unions might suffer losses in numbers and be weakened somewhat. The more militant and aggressive section, however, would almost certainly remain, and being without the restraining influence of the moderate section, their actions might become much more harmful. The benefits of the Act. he continued, were of outstanding importance. The first was that it had as nearly as possible abolished sweating. This one thing was in itself enough to justify the existence of the Act. By establishing minimum wage rates and conditions it had prevented that cut-throat competition between employers which was so often done at the expense of the unfortunate wageearner. It had given stability of costs through settled wage conditions, which enabled contracting to be entered into on a sounder and more assured basis.
In the discussion on the president’s address memberß strongly opposed the views expressed therein, and several stated that industry was not receiving a commensurate return for the outlay in wages fixed by the court. It was contended that the state of industry did not receive sufficient consideration when awards were being made.
Several speakers condemned the proposed amendment of the court's constitution by the appointment of three judges. Mr IV. Scott, the employers’ representative on the Arbitration Court, addressed the meet ig at some length in committee, and his remarks were loudly applauded.
A BALANCE I’O CREDIT. CHRISTCHURCH. August 25. In the course of his address at the annua) meeting of the Canterbury Employers’ Association this evening the President, Mr F. \V Hobbs, said that objection was taken to the Arbitration Court because it had not prevented strikes. That it had not done so was quite true, and could anyone with a knowledge of business methods expect it to do so? During the five years. 1921 to 1925. there were, in all, some FOI stoppages of work, said Mr Hobbs. Of these, 273. or 90 per cent., were in mining, shipping, and cargo-working, and food, etc. (mainly in freezing works). These three would bo recognised as being unions of a more turbulent nature than most others. It had to be remembered that the registration of-a union under the Arbitration Act was not now compulsory, and that some of tho unions involved in a considerable proportion of the strikes mentioned wore, in fact, not so registered, and therefore were outside the court’s jurisdiction; and, were within certain restrictions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, free to strike. With or without the Arbitration Court the strikes would almost certainly have occurred.
"It is easy.” Mr Hobbs said, “to total up the strikes which have occurred, out it is quite impossible to calculate the strikes and lock-outs which have been prevented by the court settling matters in dispute. These would probably have amounted to an infinitely greater number and the saving of the losses which would have been incurred by these added numbers of strikes must constitute a credit balance to tho court which would be sufficient in itself to justify the system and its actions.”
The following appeared in our second edition of last week.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW19270830.2.123
Bibliographic details
Otago Witness, Issue 3833, 30 August 1927, Page 35
Word Count
1,002ARBITRATION SYSTEM. Otago Witness, Issue 3833, 30 August 1927, Page 35
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Otago Witness. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.