INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VII, Issue 2029, 16 August 1920, Page 6

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.

THE SPIRIT OF NO COMPROMISE. MR PRYOR'S RECENT STATEMENT. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare I.earue.) We have read published reports of Mr William Pryor's speech at Christchurch on "a new Labour movement." With the affirmations in favour of more friendly relations between employers and employed, the human touch of personal association in the workshops, the plan of Workshop Committees leading up to District Councils, and National Councils of the single trade, or industry, we heartily'agree. It has to be recognised, however, that none of these things are in opposition to the holding of a general National Industrial Conference of employers and workers. Mr Pryor says "There is nothing in the'Whitley scheme providing for conferences of an aggregation of trades." Well, no responsible body has said there was. yet such National Conferences have been called in Great Britain, Africa and Australia.

It is when we come to deal with the calling of such a general conference that we find Mr Pryor's statement wholly unsatisfactory. He quotes Mr Bloodworth as saying:— "It is perfectly true that our main objective is to assist the overthrow of the capitalist system," and further, "no compromise is possible so far as ultimate aims are concerned." On that Mr Pryor says: "Gentlemen, we have in those words a complete justification of the attitude the Employers' Federation has taken up." Our comment must be plain and it is that Mr Pryor is covering the r,eal issue by talking rhetorical nonsense. Nobody ever proposed the calling of a National Industrial Conference to discuss the ultimate aims of either Labour or Capital, not even the Federation of Labour. The Federation of Labour in its official report of 1918. whilst affirming its revolutionary objective, adds these words:—"Yet we recognise that industry must go on if the nafion is to exist, and that so long as the relationship of employers and employed continues these two parties to the social contract can, and, indeed, must meet to discuss and endeavour to agree temporarily upon various matters. The same report supports the establishment of Works Committees, District Industrial Councils and National Industrial Councils. On top of that the federation recommended the calling of a National Conference of employers and workers to try how far they might agree upon a working plan of operations. What Does it Mean? To the plain man of affairs this situation must appear perfectly absurd. In 1918 Labour presents a programme for Works Committees, District and National Councils and asks for a general conference with the employers to discuss these matters. The Employers' Federation says:—"No, we will not meet men whose ultimate aims are so extreme." In 1920 the Employers' Federation, or at least Mr Pryor. presents a programme for Works Committees, District Councils and National Councils, but still says:—"No, we cannot meet Labour in conference because the ultimate aim of these men is 'to overthrow the capitalist system.'" Reduced to simple terms the situation is that Labour says to the emnloyers: "We can make no compromise with you on our ultimate aims, but we will confer with you as to how to make the best of the present system whilst it lasts." Hie Employers' Federation says:—"Your ultimate aims arc too extreme, and we will not meet you at all." In the face of an impasse of this kind to talk sentiment about the "human touch" is simnly futile. In our opinion the attitude of the Employers' Federation is onposed to the verv spirit of industrial peace. The federation is guilty of adopting an attitude of unreasoning no-compromise, for when it is asked to confer upon the verv (iiiestions which it has, through Mr Pryor. placed in its own programme it declines. For this unfortunate state of affairs we believe there is nobody in New Zealand more to blame than Mr William Prvor, secretarv of the Employers' Federation. It i.s time to say plainlv that Mr Prvor may talk peace in the abstract for ever, but we are-convinced that the trades unionists of the Dominion (both moderates and extremists) never will believe that he is genuinely in favour of industrial peace. If the Employers' Federation wanted a peace settlement with Labour for it to send out its chief militant advocate, who is most of his time immersed in fights, as its ambassador of peace is a clear demonstration of utter futility. Down to Bed-rock.

Notwithstanding the pose of Mr Pryor of being the man of widest knowledge and of his federation having the most practical insight we will reduce the issue of a general National Industrial Conference to simple terms and let the public judge as to what is practical. The questions which otfecl industry can be divided into Ihree classes: — (1) Questions of general economics, such as Individualism versus Socialism. (2) Questions relating to the conditions of il single trade, industry or service. (3) Oueslions relating lo the conditions governing trades, industries and services in general, such as the labour laws, modes of settling disputes, etc. Now with respect to class (1), il has never been proposed lo hold a joint conference on these questions; with respect lo class (2) it is no! proposed to deal with these at a general National Conference where various trades and industries would be represented. II is with reference solely to the questions in class (31 thai the Welfare League has urged lite need for calling a National Conference of employers, workers and consumers. Our reason is Ilia! there are only two ways to deal with such issues: One is bv leaving them entirely to the exigencies of politics, and the oilier is by some mutual understanding between those actually engaged in the industries, and representations from those having most direct knowledge. The league holds that the latter course is the wisest and best. To he talking peace and acting no-compromise is simply foolishness. When the Labour side hold out the olive branch by asking to confer, not on ultimate aims, but on present issues, the employers blundered badly in rejecting the offer. To talk peace at the men whom you decline to confer with is to cast doubt upon your own sincerity. If we might tender the Employers' Federation a hint we would sa\, lei Mr Pryor slick to his light-

ing job, nut give the peace making to someone who is not so deeply involved in the practices of indus-