The Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. THURSDAY. MARCH 24, 1920

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12017, 26 March 1920, Page 4

The Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. THURSDAY. MARCH 24, 1920

j WHEN our labour legislation was framed by the politicians, at the command of the organisations who controlled votes, arid whose sole and selfish aim was to gain more money for less wort, the lawmakers bound one side only, and left its members helpless against the assaults of the other. When a dispute occurred and an award was made the employer was bound to obey it and pay more, oven though it was accompanied by fewer hours of work, or followed by a go-slow policy. If the award was given against a union, which was very rarely the case, or if the union did not succeed in its demands, its members were free to do as they pleased, and either accept it or go still slower, or lay down their tools. ! There was no means of compelling I their compliance with an order of j the Court. There never was any need to invent means of compelling the employer to carry out the terms of an award. There was sufficient compulsion in the fact that his capital was locked up in the industry ho was engaged in, and circumstances themselves compelled him to carry on. His stake was fixed and he could not remove it. His opponents, who should under proper and untrammelled conditions, have been, his co-operators, could, however, easily transfer their operations elsewhere, and give no consideration whatever to the effect of this on his fortunes, or on the industry itself. This h as made for industrial unrest, auditor increased cost of carrying on business or industry, nvith consequent increased cost of living for everybody. An Australian politician has just made a suggestion which contains a germ that may develop into improvement. It is to the effect that when parties to a industrial dispute come before the Court for arbitration or decision, each shall deposit bom a, which shall be liable to forfeit in the event of refusal tq*abey the judgment of the Court. In our own country, of late, the inspectors of awards have been successfully prosecuting unions that have allowed members to strike, but, as no security has been deposited, and a union may easily divest itself of funds, there is do guarantee that any hues inflicted will bp recoverable. The Australian proposal would transform an industrial dis-

pnte from a" gamble in which only one party can lose, into a legitimate contest for which each would risk a stake, and give security against wilful disobedience of the mandates of a Court established to ensure fairplay and justice between employer' and employed. ’ We trust to see it either incorporated in our industrial legislation, or insisted upon by the industrial Courts before they proceed with the hearing of any dispute.