The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1913. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION.

Waipa Post, Volume V, Issue 238, 15 August 1913, Page 2

The Waipa Post. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY AND FRIDAY FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1913. ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION.

THE Government, true to its promise, has framed an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which will be brought down as soon as the opportunity offers. We have not been permitted to know the contents of the Bill, but we have been assured that its aim will be to avert, as far as possible, industrial upheavals such as those which have been experienced in recent yearsThe position of the Government is rather unique in the matter. It is unable to ascertain the opinion of Labour. One section of the Labourites is bitterly hostile to the Arbitration Court, as at present composed, while another clings to it tenaciously. It is clear that what the Government has to do is to protect the industries against desolation by strikes and lockouts. How can this be done ? Is it possible to set up a tribunal to which employer and employee will appeal with confidence, and the decision of which will be respected by both parties ? Would a Wages Board composed of parties to the dispute, as in Australia, be one whit better than the Aibitration Court, as at present constituted ? Is there any power in the land that can compel a man to work if he does not so desire ? What is the value of an agreement, if it can be broken with impunity? Under the law as it at present stands, the employer is surrounded by all manner of restrictions. He is compelled to employ only those who are identified with a Union. He has to observe Union rules, and pay Union wages. His business is controlled by the State, instead of by himself, only that he,, instead of the State has to pay the piper. On the other hand, the employee can do practically as he chooses. If he does not like his work, he can leave it almost at a moment's notice. If he can discover an imaginary grievance he can precipitate a strike and ruin the employer. Such conditions are manifestly unfair —unfair alike to employer and conscientious employee, for whilst the employer is harrassed and handicapped the genuine worker is by compulsion a party to a threat to " paralize industries." Both Capital and Labour' are deserving of proper consideration and neither party should act disregaidless of the best interests of the other. But can the Government bring about a better order of things so long as it permits the pernicious svstem of preference to Unionists to remain upon the Statute Book. We are told that Trades Unionism is born of a desire to promote the interest of the working man, and if this is really the case why | should pressure in the form of '' preference," to assure Union membership be introduced into the many awards ? Surely the working man is hot so dead to his own interests as to miss a " good thing " —or is it that he is distrustful of the Union methods and disgusted at the actions of the accredited Agents of the organisation of which he needs must remain a member. But the most important duty of the Government, as we conceive it, is to restore the independence of the worker by wiping out the clause giving preference to Unionists. Once this is done, the way to industrial peace would be made easier. It was only when a minority of agitators found themselves in the position that they could dominate the majority of peaceable workers that the trouble began. The Government knows this and it also knows that the great force of public opinion is opposed to anything approaching "tyranny." It is' therefore incumbent upon it to take drastic measures to restore the individuality of the worker and to aim for the drawing together of the great forces of Capital and Labour, thereby promoting the industrial welfare of the Dominion