THE Wairarapa Age SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1936. OUTLAWING THE EMPLOYER.

Wairarapa Age, 1 August 1936, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1936. OUTLAWING THE EMPLOYER.

While it is evidently unequal and inequitable in its general effect, the wage restoration legislation of the Government casts established principles of justice to the four winds in the obligations it seeks to impose on employers. This relates particularly to a clause which was challenged vigorously by the Opposition in the House of Representatives on Thursday evening. The clause not only makes every employer liable to a penalty not exceeding £25 if he dismisses any worker from his employment by reason of the Eact that the worker is entitled, under the legislation of this year, to ’increased pay or a reduction of hours, but places on the employer the burden of proving that the dismissal of any such worker was not in contravention of the Act. In defending the clause, the Minister of Finance (the Hon. W. Nash) submitted the astonishing contention that it was on all fours with a clause in. the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act of 1925 which provided that where a worker dismissed was immediately precedi ing his dismissal an official representing his union in any negotiations or conference with employers, it should lie on the employer to prove that the worker was dismissed for a reason other than that he had acted in such a capacity. In his attempted parallel, the* Minister clearly resorted to as poor an example of special pleading as has ever been heard within the walls of Parliament. There is a world of difference between taking ,special measures to protect a few union officials against victimisation and restricting drastically the right of anjr employer to dismiss any worker.

As it stands, the tyrannical clause which Mr. Nash defended so poorly is capable of leading to a wholesale wrecking of business organisation. No allowance is made for the fact that the raising of wages to the 1931 level may compel an employer to restrict the scale of his business operations and to reduce the size of -his staff, or even to close down. In that case the employer would definitely be dismissing employees on account of wage increases. Would he on that account become subject to the penalties prescribed, while he was at the same time having his business cut down, or was being driven out of it altogether It can only be hoped that in the administration of this law by magistrates, its worst features will be modified to some extent, but the general effect of putting such an unfair and inequitable onus on employers is bound to be bad for all concerned. There was tittle if any exaggeration in the statement of | a member of the Opposition, during the debate in the House of Representatives, that the clause under notice placed employers in the criminal class. It may be hoped that many level-head-ed wage-earners will recognise that legislation of this kind, though intended ostensibly to benefit them, is in reality a gift from the Greeks. An enlargement of employment in satisfactory conditions evidently will not be assisted by imposing on employers absurdly harassing restrictions and in particular the hard choice of attempting to carry on at a loss or becoming subject to prosecution and fine.

POLITICS BY ORDER. Irrespective of what this or that political party expects to “get out of it,” a proposal laid before the House of Representatives last evening is open to condemnation on far more serious and important grounds. As information stands, the proposal is to provide by law that not only a trade union, but “any society,” may be resolution of a majority of its members use its funds for the furtherance of political objects. These provisions apply specifically to any society of public servants well as to industrial and trade unions. The policy thus proposed is open to challenge first and foremost as an infraction of British liberty. It is fair and just that a member of a union or other organisation of the kind should contribute in that capacity to its support. It is absolutely unjust that ho should be compelled to give financial support to political objects to which he may be completely opposed. Instead of being described as one to remove political disabilities, the Bill brought down might more correctly be termed one to impose political disabilities and to com*pel members of minorities to subscribe to the funds of their political opponents. No measure could be opposed more completely tq. the spirit of British political liberty. By forcing political partisanship and divisions on bodies which are legitimately organised on a non-political basis, the Government’s proposals at the same time are well calculated to split these bodies internally and impair their efficient functioning. The adoption of these proposals would be a definite step also towards making advancement in the Public Service dependent on political faction fighting and intrigue instead of merit.