The Star. MONDAY, FEB. 20, 1893. Compulsory Arbitration.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4574, 20 February 1893, Page 2

The Star. MONDAY, FEB. 20, 1893. Compulsory Arbitration.

In the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales a few days ago, an attempt was made to pass an Act for enforcing' arbitration in trades and labour disputes. Of course the attempt failed, as it always must fail in any Legislature until the question is made* a parby one by a Government with a strong following. The argument chiefly relied upon by the opponents of compulsion appeared to be that the awards of a Conciliation Board could not be enforced. But this is surely begging the quostion altogether. One opponent is reported to have declared that, on the day the country attempted to dictate to capitalists what wages they would psy, the country must go to the wall. Such a theory . could be equally urged to justify sweating and the reduction of wages to starvation limits. It might be pleaded, for instance, in such cases as are now known to exist in Melbourne, where working girls, experienced mantlemakers, are paid for making cheap articles of clothing a rate of wages which gives, them no more than one shilling and five pence halfpenny for a day's work — cases are cited in which the amount earned for a whole week's work does not exceed five shillings. One's blood boilß when one is told that any legislative interference to improve the rate of wages given to these poor women would ruin the country. The argument is preposterous. The fact is that at present compulsion exists, but it is all on one side. Employers have the power to compel their workpeople to take low rates of wages or suffer the loss of employment— in other worda, starvation. The same speaker said that if an employer was ordered by an Arbitration Board to give the wages his employees demanded he could get over the difficulty by dismissing those who had successfully established their case, and engaging in their places others who would agree to work for the lower wages objected to. The establishment of an Arbitration Board, whose decisions could be set at nought so easily as this, would indeed be useless. But such an evasion of a decree of the Board would, of course, be an act of contempt, for which due punishment should be provided. On the other hand, it was contended that the workers would not obey the decision of the Board should that decision be against them, and that they could not be compelled to obey. Eeally one is at a loss to imagine how any man could seriously advance such argument?. Every day experience proves that the decisions of courts of law can be enforced, no matter how much aggrieved those may feel against whom the decision is give«. No one supposes that in every case juatice is done. Juries and Magistrates are not infallible, and verdicts and decisions occasionally err; bub there is generally an opportunity offered for a revision of an unjust judgment. The fact that mistakes sometimes are made is not used as a reason for the abolition of legal tribunals, neither should the supposal that Courts of Arbitration would give unreasonable decisions be held to be an unanswerable objection to those Courts being given the power to compel, obedience to their j decrees. The objeot Bought fej those who wish to see compulsory

arbitration established is aofc se j much the suppression of strikes and i lock-outs as the prevention of a condition ] of things that necessitates the adoption cf \ such extreme measures. The constitution j of the Arbitration Board will, of necessity, i secure full representation for both capital < and labour, and, consequently, the rights ' and interests of both employers and em- | ' ployees will fee carefully considered. It is ] extremely unlikely that the decisions of > such a Court will be unreasonable. They may be unfavourable to capital, it is true, and evidently the opponents ef compulsory '■ arbitration think bo, for the opponents invariably belong to the class of employers. But it by no means follows that because the decisions are unfavourable they are unreasonable. The proper conclusion ! to draw would be, we rather believe, that j the attitude assumed towards their em- j ployees by the employers had been un- jreasonable and unjußt. At any rate, until \. the experiment of compulsory arbitration I has been tried, it is premature to assume '' that its result will be unjust to either j capital or labour. We hope to see the [ experiment tried in New Zealand, where a \ strong Government supports it. We have no fear that it will prove.,*, failure. j - . . ' ■ ' ' ■ i