The Washington times., 1901-08-30

Il
The grave injury to the general bust
ness of the country. and to labor which
has resulted from the steel strike rem
ders discussion of means to avert such
| conflicts between capital and labor not
only timely. but almost necessary. We
are daily treated to the theories of doc
trinaires who offer specifics for the
strike and lockout disease. and some OF
them may be as good as the intentions
that underlie their postulation; but as
a rule they are unconvincing because
they have not been practically tested.
1t is not so with the New Zealand
compulsory arbitration system, gov
| erned by well defined law, which has
given such satisfactory. results during
the seven years it has been in operation
that neither the employing nor the en-
ployed class in that British colony
| would for moment think of abolishinS
| or materially changing it. In letter
TO the New York Evening Post" Mr..
| Henry Demarest Lloyd gives some in
| teresting information concerning the
| workings of the New Zealand arbitra-
ton law for the six years ending June
30, 1900. He writes:
| II have recently received volume of four hun
dred and seventy-one pages, published by the New
Zealand Government, and entitled, Awards,
Recommendations. etc, Made Under the Indus
trial Cancellation and Arbitration act from Aug
ust, 1894. When the Act Came into Force. to June
| 80 1907 II shows that during the six years
| Of the law. in the first VI which nothing was
done, two hundred and five cases have been before
its tribunals. OF these hundred and six
were initiated before the boards OF coneilia-
tion, which have no power of enforcing
awards, and in only thirty of them
the findings accepted: seventy-five were taken
up TO the court of arbitration. which has the
power OF enforcing-if needed, it seldom is
and there settled and usually the decisions of the
Cancellation boards reafirmed. Other
to the number or fifty-seven were initiated direct
~ in the arbitration court. the disputants felt
that time spent in the boards with no enforcing
powers was time wasted. OF these hundred
and siNty-three cases only twelve up after
ward in applications for enforcement in six
the application OF the agericyed party for
forceInent denied, but In the Others, where
the violation of awards clearly proved. the
court, ignoring its perhaps too-distant critics.
proved that il was entirely practical to eyiorce
the enforcement.
Perhaps a word about the 'compulsion' may
clear away a stumbling-block. No workinSrnan
can be brought before these tribunals nor appeal
to them unless he belongs to = trades union.
unless that trades union has legally registered
for The purpose of suinmonins or being summoned
in such proceedings. and such workingmen can
withdraw their registration and pass out from
under the law if they wish. Employers and en-
ployes can keep out of the reach of the arbitra-
tion law by the simple device OF arranging with
each other not to resort to it. They then
strike and lockout TO their hearts content. il
such does come from the heart. Here is the
compulsion: II party to a labor dispute
wants to arbitrate instead of fighting the other
party. if summoned by it, must into court
and arbitrate. IL is the compulsion of our civil
courts. which guard US with lawsuits instead of
suits Of srmor. And under the New Zealand
not like the award is compelled TO work. They
stay home or go fishing; only, if they do
work, it must be under the terms of the award.
The practical result is that both employers and
employees all the country have formed I'M
ions TO take advantage Of the law; they could
withdraw, but they do not do so; the law is so
popular that its scope Is widened every year,
and during the past year amended to include
several classes not before given the privilege of
arbitration, such as clerks. tram-car men, and
others
AS we understand it, the idea of
Compulsory arbitration supposed to
be included in the New Zealand law has
met with strong opposition from the
labor organizations. rather than from
employers. in the United States. Very
likely this opposition has resulted more
from misunderstanding Of the actual
practice under the law than from any
inherent objection TO the principles en-
bodied in it. Possibly because they |
have felt themselves to be in forma-
tive state, and not quite sure of their |
ground, the great labor unions of this |
country have shown a disposition to (,
avoid the assumption of legal response |
bility, while generally striving to mold |
capital to the highest responsibility. |
This has been illustrated in the avoid |
ance of legal incorporation by the |
various national organizations. which, |
if resorted to, would give them a stand |
ing in court that they do not now pos |
sess; but which, on the other hand, |
" ould bind them in respect of their cor
porate acts.
Provisions such as are contained in |
the New Zealand industrial concilia-
ton and arbitration act might remove
many labor objections to the plan Of |
compulsory" arbitration. AS Mr. |
Lloyd explains, in the above statement, !
arbitration is not Compulsory In the
broad sense in New Zealand. Both en-
ployers and employees are at liberty TO
free themselves from the operation of
the law by agreements to that effect;
and, under it, no man is compelled to
work unless he so elects. The point is
that, once a case has been adjudicated
In the court of arbitration, the capital
list is bound by its decision, and so are
the operatives affected by it. If they
choose TO work. 1t would be hard to
find anything more impartial or equita-
Bile. and the system deserves more ear
nest attention and study than SO far