The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1908. OUR LABOR LAWS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2225, 24 June 1908, Page 2

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1908. OUR LABOR LAWS.

When iSir Joseph Ward was in Gisborne he carefully avoided giving any i'nl-ration as to the exact nature of the legislation which the Government intends to bring down during the coaling session in order to restore something like order to our industrial -y/o’H. This extreme caution has been observed by the Premier at all his meetings, and when tlie AttorneyGeneral, Dr. .Findlay, made his speech at Wellington last week ho was careful to point out that his own personal views, which were not necessarily those of the Government, wero being given. Under tile circumstances it is more tin in. probable that Dr. Findlay was selected to outline tlie scheme .set forth by liim in order to see how it would be received before being definitely adopted by the Ministry, this being quite after the customary manner of tlie Ward Government. Regarding the occasion referred to, a perusal of AA'eilingion exchanges shows that the AttorneyGeneral delivered a really, groat speech ; one which showed evidence of a thorough preparation, and which was full of useful information and conclusions that had apparently been well thought out. iDr. Findlay first reviewed the circumstances which led to the establishment of our Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and then made out an excellent; case for the benefits it has conferred upon our industrial community during the eighteen years it has been in force. 11l this connection lie wont very carefully into the increase iu the wages paid to workers since the Act canto into force, and also tho increase in the cost of living. A\ r itli his contention that the increase in the cost of living had not been to a great extont brought about by the effect of tlie Arbitration Act, we are not concorned just now, the most interesting portion of the addrbss being that which relates to suggestions for future* action. -Dr. Findlay recognises, as many have done for some time past, the evils that ensue upon the levelling-down tendency of the present minimum wage. In this connection lio says:—

I hold to‘be of paramount importance, not only to the workers and employers, hut the whole .community, that the workers should have some direct pecuniary interest in (the product of tlmir labor. To give all workers, fast or slow, careful or careless, the same wage, to oiler no inducement whatever to the worker to take a real and lively interest in his work, to reduce wages: to the same dead love! whatever be the result of the wage earner's efforts or skill or cure, really tends to degrade labor. It tends to rob it of that living and wholesome interest, if not a love of the work, which can prevent the sense 0 f drudgery and add oven a pleasure to effort. In seeking for a remedy for this great flaw in our present system of regulating industry, Dr. Findlay turns to the Socialistic panacea, the profit-sharing method, and he finds it entirely unsatisfactory. As he puls it, a system under which—(a) The workers have no voice or control in the management; (b) In which a worker may work much harder and produce more, and yet, owing io tlie management. in which he has no share, the business makes a loss and all the worker’s extra efforts go unrewarded ; (c) In which the industrial worker, however much or little he works, shares the profits but does not share the losses-;

(tl) In which the Idler workers show profits along with the most industrious and skilful; (e) In -which thoro. is no natural j basis of. division; (f) In which, if the whole increase of the profits is, due to the ill*: ei'tmso and excellence of tho workers’ efforts, tho employer still takes liis share, and vice versa, whore it is the employer’s business ability alone which makes the profit, tho workers take their share—

A system undor which these defects arise is doomed to failure). Pursuing his subject further the Attorney-Goner i) com os to tho conclusion that the only solution of the problem is to provide for whit he describes as a “needs wago” as the minimum amount that can he paid to a worker, and to arrange for additional payment at a fixed rate for those who, because of their special industry or ability, are able to produce more than tho amount which is supposed to bo represented by the

“needs wage.” This latter amount is to be fixed by tho Arbitration Court on the basis of what can be produced by an average worker under average conditions in a particular industry. Theoretically, the system seems an admirable one, hub Dr. Findlay is not to foolish as to imagine it beyond criticism. Ho says undor this head: Now, I Want to anticipate objections which arc likely to bo raised, to this system. ’The practice Ttf paying a premium**"6r'"extra wage . to olio oi* a 1 few operatives in order* to force the pace of all is strongly condemned by trade unions. And from tlio glaring abuses of the. system, (rightly' condemned. I need not delay to set out the objections to tlio class of “chasers,” “runners,” and “bell-liorses” employed in different callings at a premium to be pace-makers for all. The oppressive tendency of this peculiar system has justified trade union opposition. But this system lias never yet in tho world, as far'as I know, been tried under -a. Compulsory Arbitration Act with powers to prevent these abuses, a.ml upon examination it will bo found that its evils are due to tlio fact that the employer (in the absence of the controlling power of an Arbitration Act over him) has.been able to iiso or rather abuse tho system for his own profit. 'The Attorney-General is to be congratulated upon the thoroughness with which lie lias tackled a very great problem, and tho country will watch with the very closest interest any legislation embodying his suggestions that may come before Parliament.