SOME EMPLOYERS' VIEWS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9301, 30 July 1908, Page 4

SOME EMPLOYERS' VIEWS.

"THE LAST TRY COMPULSORY ARBITRATION BILL." In his address to the Employers' Association last evening the president (Mr F. W. Hobbs) spent considerable time in dealing with the Arbitration Act and its proposed amendments. The notable feature of the year, he said, had been the breakdown of the Arbitration Act. A series of strikes had demonstrated that the Act could no longer be enforced against the worker.The injustice of the position of the employers had raised a strong public opinion which demanded that the Act should either be repealed altogether or amended so as to be effective. Mr Hobbs described at length what, in his opinion, the workers expected compulsory arbitration to effect, and why, in Ms opinion, it had failed to realise their expectations. Many workers, he said, seemed to have a crude idea that wages could be increased to any amount which the employer liked, and that the latter could protect himself by increasing the selling price of his goods. The labour agitators who dominated many Unions, were also constantly preaching revolutionary Socialism, a system by which they told the workers they would individually obtain an equal share of the joint product of their own and their employer's labour and skill, irrespective of their invidual ability, as compared with each other, or of the comparative ability and labour • of themselves and their employers. Their ideal Socialism was the State ownership of all sources of production and exchange, with equal distribution of profits amongst those engaged in the various works. . While they would probably admit that the time had not yet arrived for an ideal Socialism, they yet consiJered that they should now get a . much larger proportion of the wealth produced than had been the case in the past. In part that had been •effected by the arbitration system as they knew it, and, fcaKing the increase they received as evidence that an effective means

had been found, they jumped to the conclusion that they could get a proportion approximating fairly near to their ideal. The present rebellion arose from the disappointment which followed on the discovery that the arbitration law could give them such a proportion. To the second question, why the Act had failed to realise the workers' expectations, the short answer was that the present system of individualism prevented it. Under individualism, the various component parts, namely, labour, capital, working costs and profit, had each to receive their share of the wealth produced. The selling price of commodities determined the total amount of wealth for distribution. By more protection they might be able to give a nominal increase in wages, but the actual value of the wage, as determined by ite purchasing power, was not increased, owing to the added cost of production necessitating higher selling prices of commodities. He quoted from a recent speech delivered by Dr Findlay to show that profits were not receiving their fair share of the proceeds of production. Industries would not be carried on at a loss, nor would capitalists invest unless they were assured of getting market rates of interest on their money. Further increases of. wages rates would defeat the workers^ ends by causing the closing up of industries. The Act had been of great benefit to the worker. If labour was not organised it was seldom able to get a 6 lar°:e a proportion of the wealth produced as it otherwise would. In New Zealand the Act had had foT the worker the double advantage of rendering organisation a necessity, and, by means of its awards, seeming to him the lar^esfr share of the products of industry jwhich the present individualistic system could give him. Instead therefore of deriding the Act, he should give it his heartiest support. Now that tie Act was before the House for amendment or repeal, it was advisable for them, as employers, to consider whether or not they vanted compulsory arbitration. The advantages of the system, if it oould be equally enforced wefe: for the worker—^-preven-tion of sweating, and the securing of a fair return for his labour; and for tiie employer — seeunty of contract, settled j working conditions for a stated time. j equality of working conditions, and security 'to the fa'ir-mimVd employers by prevention of unclercuttinjr of prices at the workers' expense Any Act which would secure those conditions must be beneficial to -both worker and employer, and should receive their support. Open industrial warfare brought heavy loss to both Avinner and loser. He had for some time been opposed to compulsory arbitration, and in favour of a measure promoting voluntary conciliation, because it did not seem possible to amend the law so as to make compulsion effective against both sides. Equality before the law was a fundamental principle of British justice. It was a precious heritage which they could no longer allow to be traduced. The Government had fairly faced the position, and brought down a method of enforcement which seemed to have some claim of successful operation. It might well be called the last try Compulsory Arbitration Bill, and he thought it would be in the best interests, both of themselves as employers, and of the community as a whole, if they gave this last try a fair trial. If it failed the matter would be definitely settled. On the other hand, if that method was not tried there would always be a feeling that the failure of compulsory arbitration had not been proved, and at some future time there was no doubt that an Act on the lines of that now proposed would become ■ law, and the whole trouble be begun over again. Briefly summarising the new Bill, Mr Hobbs eaid that the main features should receive the support of all who believed that equity was the first principle of good law. The Bill should be effective in most cafee-s, but, like any other law, it could only stand if it had the respect of these it governed. If large numbers of workers set it at defiance, it could not be enforced, and would have be repealed. Their negotiations with the workers would then be direct, and past experience had proved that they had no need to fear the result. , Mr G. T. Booth said that the most important thing the Association had to consider 'was the Arbitration Act Amendment Bill at present, before Parliament. The president had given tbe meeting: a fair and ooncis* summary of its provisions, and bad aptly termed it the " la<3t try for oompulsory arbitration." The Bill wps, us they must admit, an hon^t and earnest endeavour on the T>art of the Government to m*ke the compulsory clauses of the Arbitration Act opprative against hoth employers and employ^w. The employers had always known that when the time came when the Arbitration Court could riot grant all the demands of .the workers, there would he nothing on earth whidl would prevent a strike. Workers, however, did no + need to strike. They knew .they could, resort to a plan which was much mo"© effective, the plan of " going slow." He quoted figures showing that in a certain industry in the dominion an annual wages bill of £361,150 had been | increased by £53,411 in four years. The increased annual production should have amounted to £140,669, but it was actually only £15.310. There was no objection to legislation protecting women and children, but they did not want to have men ," muling and puking " in the State's arms until they were lulled into a state of shimber. He had very little iaith in this last attempt, and in the light of the past fifteen years' experience he was growing more and more doubtful of the wisdom of trying to maintain a system which would lead to the decay of industrial efficiency and the ruin of the industrial community.