STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY IN NEW ZEALAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 3868, 1 May 1928, Page 5

STATE REGULATION OF INDUSTRY IN NEW ZEALAND.

By

J. MacGrgor, M.L.C..

V. When the trusts (Employers’ Association) placate the unions there is nothing to temper the wind of combination to the shorn public lamb. In the last of the preceding articles the writer gave, in the words of two of the leaders of unionism in New Zealand, a description of unionism as it now exists in New Zealand under an Act having as one of its objects, “ to encourage the formation of industrial unions.” By way of contrast he now gives, as a reminder, and by way of contrast, a description of genuine, trade unionism.

Trade unions were not’ merely, nor mainly, fighting organisations; they were also, and mainly, friendly societies that accumulated capital, which they invested in safe and profitable investments, and from such well-managed ffinds they provided all kinds of benefits, such as sick pay, relief,. _and old age pensions, for their thrifty members. Men joined together in order that their combined strength might counter-balance their individual weakness, to regulate the conditions of employment, and to guarantee a certain standard of skill and efficiency on the part of their members. Trade _unionism was a shield of defence rather than a weapon of offence, and it was not designed for those political purposes which have become the main concern of those bastard organisations created under our Act. ■-

The probabilities are that when Nip Justice Williams, as president of the Arbitration Court in 1896, granted preference for the first time, it was some such idea as this he had in his mind. This is, indeed, placed beyond doubt by the explanation he gave as follows: — “ For the three years preceding only union men had actually been employed by boot manufacturers; the court would maintain things as they were, and, in future, be careful to follow what seemed to be the customary usage in each particular trade.” This was. of course, before the existence of the new unionism.

On that slight foundation of preference in favour of genuine unionism there has been erected this huge structure of preference in favour of a bastard unionism that has lost all the leading features characteristic of true unionism;—a form of unionism regarding which even Mr Ramsay MacDonald, after studying the subject on the spot, found himself constrained to write thus :—

The Act, which was to establish conciliation has really defeated it. . . . The object of the promoters of the Act was to encourage the formation of unions so that Capital and Labour might be efficiently organised, and that conference decisions might thus be accepted by both sides. In figures, their purpose has been .fulfilled. But glowing print does not tell that the Act which has increased the membership of the unions

has completely changed their character. One wonders what Mr MacDonald would have written about New Zealand unionism, and our wonderful system of “ conciliation,” if he had paid us another visit a few years later, and had found in full operation a system that gives preference of employment to members of those degenerate unions which he had diagnosed and described so accurately. What would he have said on discovering that the result of such preference was such that jt might be described in some such terms as this : that genuine unionists habitually absent themselves from the union meetings. probably from fear of being called “scabs," and that, consequently, the unions have fallen completely under the control of a few extremists, who get the unions affiliated with federations that are *' ran ”. by a more select group of extremists; and consequently the unions have become political organisations, and that thus a few political “ bosses ” are enabled to extract huge sums of money for political purposes from those nominal members who never attend a meeting, but who find themselves in the position of being compelled to pay such fees, as a condition of being allowed ’to work at their lawful trades—fees amounting in the agregate to hune sums at the disposal of those “ bosses ” to be manipulated by thme as thev may think proper? In a. previous article the writer had occasion,.to call Mr Bloodworth as a wit ness. for the purpose of shoeing the difference Between that genuine, trade unionism in which he seems to have been brought up in England and onr degraded .statutory unionism of which, he is now one of the leaders. He is now introduced by tho. writer as what lawyers cal] “an .exhibit ” for the nurnose. ’of enabling readers , to realise the difference between the genuine trade unionist, such as Mr Bloodwoyth apnarentlv once was. and the kind of unionist that is now “ nreferrred ” in New Zealand. Mr Bloodworth, the genuine trade unionist, has been ouoted as follows :— Formerly the unions had been concerned not only with wages and conditions, but with the protection of its special, trade or craft. They were concerned with craftsmanship. Much of the lack of pride of craft to-day among . the..younger workmen was due to the changed /industrial conditions.

By way of contrast, a passage is now submittted* from a speech delivered by ■the : same-, leader as a “preferred” New ‘Zealand? unionist, a few years ago .in his capacity of president of the New Zealand Federation of Labour:—

Profit sharing, piecework, payment by results, bonus systems and superannuation funds, which the Employers’ Federation recommends for earnest consideration and adoption, are not steps forward into an industrial era of hope and progress, but steps backward.

Let it be noted that, in speaking in such terms, Mr Bloodworth was acting as president of one of the most powerful Labour organisations that have ever existed in New Zealand, and that he wag replying to certain recommendations that had been put forward by the Employers’ Federation “ with a view to establishing a better understanding in industry ” Mahomet inviting the mountain to come over to him. If the prophet had to go over to the mountain, why should not the Employers’ Federation go over to Mr Bloodw’orth and his federation, and, if necessary, even drop some of its more troublesome principles, such; for .. example, as its objection to preference to unionists, “ with a view to establishing a better understanding in industry,” and at the sam e time removing .one of the worst obstacles in the way of’ a still greater principle—“ pass it -on?,”. As it is even conceivable that some of the manufacturers and other members of th’ Employers’ Federation may have forgotten the fact of its objection, on principle;. to preference to unionists, the writer submits, as a reminder, a protest made by it a few years ago and published throughout New Zealand : —

Preference to Unionists. Protest by Employers’ Federation. At a meeting of the Advisory Board of the New Zealand Employers’ Feder ation yesterday the following motion was unanimously carried“ Whereas the Arbitration Court has in various industrial disputes granted a modified form of preference to members of unions of workers which have not been actively opposed by employers, although they have at all times insisted upon their rights to engage workers best qualified to perform the work required of them; and the Arbitration Court having recently shown a disposition to impose upon employers a much greater responsibility in regard to the employment of workers than has been cast upon them preyiouslv. and the President of the Court having inti mated that, in his opinion, it "is the outy of the employers to refuse to em ploy workers unless they becom e mem hers of unions, the Advisory Board of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, after having consulted all the affiliated bodies, desire to publicly intimate that the employers of this Dominion do and always wil] resent and oppose to the utmost any attempt to restrict their undeniable right to select their workmen or to compel them tj force unwilling workers into unions. Further, in view of the above facts and the danger of further restrictions bein" imposed bv the Arbitration Court, the Advisory Board strongly urge al] employers ot . labour to strenuously oppose the inclusion of preference to unionist clauses in all future awards and industrial agreements.” By way of conclusion, the writer sub.mits for consideration pronouncements made by two Supreme Court judges who have acted as the Presidents of Courts of Arbitration-Mr Justice Higgins, who is literally adored by the unionists of Australia and for very good reason, and Mr Justice Stringer. Even Mr Justice Higgins refused preference except in one instance, the special ease of the Brisbane tramways. In refusing and giving his -reasons on one occasion he said: It was rather out of consideration for employers who honestly took the best man available, -unionist or not. After all, he said, the direct way was for unionists to excel and give the employer the best service, for it was nearly always found that employers preferrod a first-class man who was a union--Ist to a second-class who was a nonunionist.

On another occasion the same judge, in his capacity of president, dealt with one of the commonest arguments in favour of preference in the following terms

It .is urged that the unionist bears the expense and worry of arbitration . . . and yet the non-unionist gets the benefit of any advance in ■wages that the unionist gains. But it does not follow that an order for preference is a fit remedy; to my mind the claimant ought to make out a very’ strong case before the court could fetter the discretion of the employer in selecting. his employees. The order should be clearly necessary in order to secure fair conditions for he men.

Mr Justice Stringer contented, himself with this simple statement- ?

I might tell you that I am personally opposed to preference-to-unionists, but it is a legacy from i previous court, and there it is.

And a greater condemnation of the System of regulating industry by means of judges .it would be difficult , to imagine, and that for the simple reason that judges naturally and habitually consider themselves bound to follow precedents’ legacies. It would seem that “ Pass it on ” is the sole remaining principle of the Employers’ Association, and it is high time that the farmers realised the position, for it is on them that the burden ultimately falls.' JTcre is a 'description of the situation l?y Mr W. D.'Hunt, than whom no one is more .competent to do it justice: The .labourer demands /increased . wages '/mt -account of increased cost, ot living, aiid the Arbitration Courts .give it to him. The trader, the manufae turer, the shipowner, the carrier, etc.,

pass all these increased costs on to their customers by increased charges, and these increased charges have to be met in the cost of everything that is sold in the country for local constimp tion. These increased costs are reflected in the Statistician’s cost-of-living figures, and these bring increased wages, which again bring increased costs, and the whole circle goes round again. The men who deliberately loaf on waterfront, or anywhere else; the men who deliberately delay shipments, or any class of work; the men who are pulling less than their weight, are all adding to the cost of everything, and on all that is consumed locally this extra cost is passed on to the consumer. But there is one class of people who cannot pass these increased costs on; they are the people who are producing for export. When they export their products they have to compete in the world’s markets; any increased cost in their own country they cannot get back; they have to compete against the most efficient producers we have in the world wherever they may be.

In a previous article of this series the writer referred to the fact that the Federal Government of Australia had recently found itself in an impasse similar to that of our Government, and that the Prime Minister, like our own, was taking steps for setting up a conference of the same kind. In a recent issue of the Melbourne Argus, in which the subject is discussed under the caption, “ Failure of Arbitration,” the following passage occurs:— From the standpoint of industrial peace th e Arbitration Act has failed. While failure in this purely legal system has been repeated it has prevented the adoption of any other method. It has created an army of professional vigilance officers in unions, whose aim

is not peace, but industrial war. . The combined effect of high wages fixed by courts and high duties fixed by Parliament is that Australia is rapidly becoming a country in which it will be impossible to grow anything for sale in the European market. . . . The Arbitration Act has forced up wages, beyond the point of economic safety, and it has perhaps more than any other institution helped to create the fallacy that wages can be maintained by legislative Act and judicial decree. The high wages that have been awarded are no use to the men who

have no work, but the nominal rates and the false expectations raised upon them do a great deal to prevent a natural adjustment when a bad season comes.”