LABOUR'S DEFIANCE.

Observer, Volume XXVIII, Issue 27, 21 March 1908, Page 2

LABOUR'S DEFIANCE.

An Arbitration Farce.

AT the time of writing, the situation at Blackball is interesting, in that it exemplifies to a startling extent the system of despotism which Labour has apparently succeeded in establishing in the land. In the past, it has been the proud boast of the people of New Zealand that theirs was a country in which such a thing as a strike was an absolute impossibility. To-day, it is only too clear that this contention was based on an absolute fallacy. The workers, as represented by the Blackball mineis, have shown that they care nothing for the awards and decisions of the Arbitration Court. This has been demonstrated before, but never so clearly as in the present instance.

When the miners went on strike, the Arbitration Court sat to consider the case, and ultimately gave their decision against the strikers. But the miners were not inclined to accept any judgment of that nature. Although the Arbitration Court was originally set up at the instance of the workers themselves, and , although, therefore, the workers should be ready and willing to accept the judgments of that Court, the Blackball strikers steadfastly refused to return to work, on the ground that the decieion of the Court was too severe.

If an unfortunate employer bad the effrontery to flout the award of the Arbitration Court, he would promptly be brought up with a round turn, and

made to pay a heavy fine for his temerity. The worker has no such fears. The employer of labour is a responsible party. His capital is invested in his business, and the Labour Department can find him whenever they want him. He cannot evade the law without paying the penalty. The employee, on the other hand, is, in many cases, a "hereto-day-and-gone-to-morrow " individual. At the time of the slaughtermen's strike it was clearly shown that it was an impossibility, in many cases, to enforce the fines that were inflicted ion the men by the Arbitration Court.

As it is quite evident that Labour is the dominant powerjin this Dominion at the present day, it would be interesting to learn what the Labour party would like t the Government to do in order to satisfy them. Kecently, the workers appointed MrMcUullough to a seat on the bench, in place of Mr Slater. But even Mr McCullough does not seem to give satisfaction to the party which he has the honour of representing. Would it not be as well for the Government to abolish the Court as at present constituted, and allow the workers to elect another, the members of which would be warranted to acquiesce in any demands which Labour might make ?

Or perhaps a more drastic step mig*ht be preferred by the workers. If so, there is no reason why the Government should not wipe out the present Arbitration Act, and request the trades unionists to draw up another. This might not please the employer, but he is an individual who must not be considered in the matter. He has no rights, so it stands to reason that it is presumptuous on his part to complain of any wrongs. With an Arbitration Act drawn up by trades unionists, and an Arbitration Court elected by the same persons, this Dominion would indeed be a paradise. If the Government are wise, they will see to it at once.