The State and Labour.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5259, 15 May 1895, Page 1

The State and Labour.

(Lyttelton Times.) If our Government, like that of M. Ribot in France, were to propose a "graduated tax on domestic servants," we should have all the Opposition newspapers denouncing it for seeking to tax a most deserving and hardworking class ; and when the fallacy of supposing that the tax would fall upon the servants was exposed, it would then be contended that the Government policy had a distinct tendency to discourage outlay and to make employment scarce. That, in fact, was what was said regarding the graduated land tax, which was first of all represented as an unjust impost on a depressed industry, and then as a vexatious tax on the large landowners, who would be compelled to curtail their operations id consequence. Of course, both assertions have been proved to be false.. The land tax has been a relief to the agriculturist, though that relief has been neutralised by the fall in prices, and no sensible person was ever deceived by the pretence that men who made a profit byemploying labour would reduce the number of their workers with a view to increasing their profits. So, the proposed tax on domestics, rising on a graduated scale, according to the xmmbt r employed by each person, will be found in practice to be a simple means of placing the burden of taxation on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. And even should the imposition of such a tax lead to a reduction in the number of domestic servants employed, there will not be wanting Radical reformers in France to declare that such is a good thing for the community, as the practice of giving or exacting personal services for pay is destructive of manly and womanly Belf-reepect, is inimical to self-reliance, and is generally demoralising in its tendency. In this connection the Republican Govern* ment of France is showing itself fully alive not only to the interests of the workers, butaleo to the importance of maintaining the dignity of labour. This was forcibly exemplified about two months ago;-, when the employea of the State match factory at. Panlin struck against what .they alleged was a reduction of wages. In a debate that took place on the subject in the Chamber of Deputies, a* member of the Ministry saidt —

The State ought to respect the dignity of workmen just as it requires them to respect the principles of authority. I therefore invited, the directors of the Pantin Match Factory not to forget that workmen have the same sense of dignity aa all of us. It has been said tbat I received the workman's delegates with friendliness. I could not receive otherwise representations which were made with courtesy. In view of the dispute as to whether wages' had decreased or not there was but one course to take— namely, a joint verification of the facts. * * * \Ve are. about to verify the disputed point with the workmen. Hear them patiently, and see whether they are right. Both sides have appointed delegates, and if they cannot agree I shall decide the question impartially. If the workmen are in the right wages will be increased. This is the way in which I understand the relations between the State and ins workmen, and we shall thus set a grand example of social pacification.

These are noble words, and it increases our admiration of the French people as a whole to learn that the Chamber unanimously resolved that a part of the Minister's remarks should be placarded all over the country, an a lesson to employers and their workmen on the subject of industrial conciliation. The Government of France has done much more than Bet an example in this' matter. It has demonstrated how utterly fallacious are the assertions that State employment of labour would be either a grinding tyranny or a debilitating system of " coddling ;" it has proved that the private employer has no claim to a monopoly of fair or benevolent dealings with workmen ; and it has reminded the world at large that other than merely monetary considerations enter into the relations of employer and employed. At the very moment the French Government was taking the enlightened and pacific course described, private employers in England — a combination of bootmaking firms— were attempting to impose injustice upon their workers, and had determined io import goods at a loss rather than submit the dispute to arbitration. When English workingmen find their sense of justice outraged and their dignity trampled upon in this fashion, it is no wonder that they demand the expropriation of the private employer and the assumption of his functions by the State. We observe that in some parts of New Zealand the reduction of the wages of local government employes is defended on the ground that it is a "duty to the ratepayers." Possibly the reductions , may be justified on grounds of equity, but the attitude of the French Government towards its match factory bands is fitted to remind all governments and corporations that they owe a duty to tjje workers as well, and that it is a mistaken policy to pursue a course that tends to the lowering ot the general standard of comfort and self-reepect in the community. A tax on domestics, emanating from such a Government as that now in power in France, is in no danger of being misunderstood by the people.