The first motion on the Orders of the Day is on the adjourned debate on Senator Haughton's motion. The Seanad will recollect it came up at a meeting one afternoon, and I think that Senators were not altogether satisfied that Senator Haughton had the fullest opportunity for stating his views. I take it that if he wishes he has the leave of the Seanad to speak again now upon this matter.
COURTS OF CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION. - RESUMED DEBATE.
Question again proposed:—
"That with the object of avoiding industrial friction throughout the Saorstát between employers and employees, the Seanad earnestly requests the Government to devise means whereby Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration might be constituted immediately, of which the decisions would be final and which would command the confidence of the public generally."— Senator Benjamin Haughton.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I will trespass on the time of the House for not more than a few moments. I had the opportunity of speaking for ten minutes or so on the last occasion, and what I said then I repeat now, that the question of unemployment is one of the most important questions confronting our country at the present time. The whole country has been severely handicapped in the recent past because of strikes or lock-outs, or whatever they might be called, throughout the 26 counties, but especially in the Metropolis and the South of Ireland. Very large sums of money have been thrown away, and salaries, wages, interest and capital itself has in many ways been wasted. In my own neighbourhood in the city of Cork alone we estimate that more than a quarter of a million, which was a low estimate, was lost in the three months during which the strike lasted, and the consequences to the community, both to employers and employed, must be regarded as real facts which should be faced by us as reasonable men, and some means should be devised whereby this unwise, imprudent and, what I would call foolish, action on the part of the community from time to time could be averted.
We have been set, I submit, splendid examples by other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations in many directions from time to time, and on this very subject of industrial strife, Australia and the Dominion of Canada have set a splendid example. I venture to hope that Ireland will rise to the occasion and follow their lead and set an example to Great Britain in this all-important matter. It seems to many of us that such machinery could be set in motion and that those most desirable objects could be obtained. I do not wish to go into details at all at this stage of the question, but simply to bring forward the subject in the earnest hope that our discussions will lead to something tangible and that something practicable will result that will induce and encourage the Government to take up the matter earnestly, and that something will be done to bring about a different and a better state of things for our country.
I think that it is desirable in any discussion of this question that any remarks made in connection with it should be free from those exaggerations and asperities that marked some similar discussion in another place. I cannot vote for this motion, though as far as the principle of Conciliation Boards, as distinct from Compulsory Arbitration, is concerned, my colleagues and I are in complete accord. There has always been greater support for conciliation machinery from the workers side than from the employers. Such Boards already exist in certain industries, such as the flour milling industry, and recently there has been established a comprehensive and elaborate scheme of Departmental Committees, Sectional Councils, and Wages Boards for the Irish railways. If these Boards get a fair chance, I believe they will have the best results, because the principle of compulsory arbitration does not enter into their constitution.
Strikes and lock-outs often occur on questions other than wages and conditions of service. Alleged victimisation, individual infringement of established rules, unfair promotions, and so forth, are all fruitful sources of trouble which often result in sectional strikes or lock-outs, and sometimes extend far beyond the radius of the original storm centre. The existence of Conciliation Boards which could be assembled quickly to deal with all such local emergencies, would, in nine cases out of ten, avert trouble and thereby avoid financial loss and suffering, as well as prevent the development of bitterness.
As in the case of the railways, the functions of such boards should be extended so as to include the discussion of better systems of working, greater efficiency, welfare of the staff, methods of recruitment, and so on. It is only by taking the employees into consultation and confidence that the co-operation necessary for the complete success of any enterprise can be secured. We fail to see the necessity, however, for Government intervention in this respect. You cannot make people, whether employers or workers, conciliatory by legislation if they desire to be otherwise. You may even compel them to set up those boards, but you do not thereby create conciliation. You can force a man to kiss his mother-in-law, but you cannot make him love her. At the present time there is nothing to prevent both sides in any industry evolving by mutual agreement conciliation machinery to meet all requirements. This development will not serve as an absolute guarantee against industrial trouble, but should at all events tend to lessen their number, and what is more important, help towards the creation of a spirit of mutual understanding and reason. Neither is there anything to prevent both sides setting up an arbitration board, and if they so desire making its awards binding, but I certainly cannot support a request to the Government to set up such Courts arbitrarily, or to seek legislative sanction for such action.
We are opposed to the principle of compulsory arbitration for many reasons. I think it was Russell Lowell who said that "peace in order to make it stick at all must be driven in with bayonets." You are not going to have industrial peace on the strength of awards made by people who at the very most have only a superficial or entirely inadequate knowledge of the conditions obtaining in the industry in which the dispute occurs. Our experience of arbitrators has been very unsatisfactory. They are very generally drawn from people with an anti-labour outlook; because of their social standing, training and environment they approach their task with an unconscious bias towards the worker, so that he has to face the proceedings with a very heavy handicap. Employers are very quick to utilise this bias in their favour to the best advantage, and their method of attack or defence as the case may be is invariably approved by the arbitrator in an industrial dispute. The procedure is to plead inability to pay, and the employer forthwith sets out to overwhelm the court with a statement of his alleged financial position. Some of these statements might have emanated from the realms of fairyland, and the workers are unable to disprove them because the employers are never compelled to produce their books. I have a vivid recollection of an important arbitration in which I was interested, presided over by a very able member of the Irish Bar, who immortalised himself by his findings, but not exactly in the way which would make him an Attorney-General in a Labour Government. It was then I had brought home to me the truth of the statement that figures could not lie but that lawyers could figure. The plea was one of inability to pay, and the employers set to work with a skill and enterprise they had never displayed in their business to fool the unhappy K.C., and by the time they had finished their financial tale of woe as represented by the elaborate table of figures, mostly absurd estimates, the eminent lawyer had in his mind the necessity for the immediate appointment of a receiver. The funny part of it was that he resented any attempt on our part to express the slightest doubt as to the real reliability of his statements. The books were demanded and refused and the legal gentleman upheld the refusal. He was an honest gentleman, but he made the mistake of assuming that the employers' representatives were all George Washingtons, whereas the workers were the lineal representatives of Ananias, and his finding was in accordance. And it even imposed on their side, who had very reasonably made allowance for a very large proportion of their statements being discounted.
However it was too good to stand. The award was properly turned down, and a mutual agreement of a very different kind to the award made subsequently proves beyond all shadow of doubt that the employers' statements were grossly exaggerated. That award if allowed to stand, would have inflicted cruel and unnecessary hardship on the workers. On the other hand, I should say before proceeding any further, that in regard to arbitrators there are, of course, exceptions, but they are unfortunately very few. In that connection I would mention, if I might, one particular arbitration, in which the employees' side had at least got a fair show. That is the one in connection with the Bank officials, presided over by our present Chairman. I think that is one instance where the workers have no reason to complain of not getting a fair and reasonable show. On the other hand if the industry is prosperous the employer refuses to disclose his financial position, and the Courts uphold the refusal. What they do is to cite the case of the worst paid workers and demand a reduction to the rates of pay made to these workers. The poor agricultural labourer is a favourite example quoted to any worker who gets a few shillings more than the slave of the field. The British Railway Companies in their recent attack adopted this attitude because their prosperity was so well known that it was useless to attempt to disguise it. These facts are very disturbing.
The worker is asked to look upon the industry and to work for it in that spirit, and I have always told him so myself whenever I had an opportunity. Yet in actual practice he is made to bear more than his share of its adversity while he is warned that in no circumstance is he to claim a share of its value. It is a case of "heads I win, tails you lose" all the time. Apart from all this it would be too much to expect the workers to have any confidence in arbitrators appointed by the present Government who have gone out of their way to inspire employers to reduce wages, and who have utilised the machinery of State to undermine anything approaching decent conditions of employment in all industries. The curt and truculent manner in which the National Teachers and the main body of the Civil Service have been treated is an example of the kind of conciliation the Government desire. After all Government Commissions are in reality arbitration courts on a large scale because they are appointed to enquire into and make recommendations on questions on which there is a difference of opinion. They go much further into their enquiries than an ordinary arbitrator. Yet we have the Government contemptuously turning down the findings of their own Commissioners, and telling them in effect that they do not know what they are talking about. What about the very reasonable salary recommendations of the Postal Commission, a Commission dominated by people who were themselves employers? If the workers have those examples of the way the Government treats arbitration how can anyone ask them to accept and respect the findings of arbitrators appointed by the same Government? Every action and gesture of the present Government towards its employees has been calculated to create resentment and inspire disloyalty. If any ordinary employer, either in this country or elsewhere, had attempted to treat his own employees with the lofty contempt which the Government has extended to the Teachers and the Postal workers, there would be no doubt as to the result. In these circumstances we are not willingly going to set up the present Government as the supreme arbiter of our economic destinies. Reference has been made to compulsory arbitration in Australasia. Nobody has thought fit to mention the important fact that this has not prevented strikes and lock-outs. Mention has not been made of the fact that compulsory arbitration is invariably accompanied by measures for the strict control and regulation of prices. New Zealand is a pretty fair example and is not an unreasonable comparison with Ireland because of the fact that its staple industry is agriculture.
The circumstances under which arbitration Courts were first introduced there, are described briefly by Sir John Findlay, K.C., ex-Attorney-General of New Zealand, as follows. He stated:—
"About thirty years ago, the conscience of the people of New Zealand was shocked by disclosures appearing in the public press of sweating, especially among woman and child workers, and particularly in the clothing trade. Legislation was passed to check this evil, and to secure, by the intervention of a competent and impartial tribunal, a living wage for all those engaged in New Zealand Industries. The framer of this legislation afterwards justified this statute on the principle that it prevented that injury to the community as a whole which results from any form of industrial parasitism, from the payment, for instance, of wages insufficient for the full maintenance under healthy conditions of workers and their families. The legislation was not due to any demand or pressure from the trades unions. It aimed rather ‘at improving the condition of sweated workers, too poor and too weak to give battle in the ordinary fashion of industrial warfare.'"
It will thus be seen that the Courts which are popularly known as Arbitration Courts, were established, not to prevent labour upheavals, but to protect defenceless and unorganised workers from the rapacity of sweating employers, but they have not prevented industrial disputes. Mr. Hughes, speaking in the Federal Parliament, said in his conclusion that "legal systems of industrial arbitration, compulsion, and all that was ancillary to them, had proved far less effective for the purpose than the method of getting both sides together in a friendly conference." Side by side with those courts, there has been acting in New Zealand (and this is where we might profitably follow the example of our friends of the Antipodes) a Board of Trade, whose business it is to regulate prices, prevent the formation of food rings, to arrange the distribution of raw material, and to punish all attempts at profiteering. Its activities are described in a nutshell by Sir John Findlay, K.C., as follows:—
"The Board has dealt somewhat arbitrarily with the price and the distribution among flour mills of good milling wheat. It has dealt with the price of flour and bread, providing in certain cases for a Government subsidy to flour millers to enable flour and bread to be sold at a certain fixed price. It has further dealt with the price of sugar, butter, timber, coal, groceries, and several other commodities. It has also instituted numerous proceedings for profiteering."
If the Government are asked to take action at all, I suggest it should be along those lines. We have here the most rapacious crowd of unscrupulous profiteers that any country could be cursed with, and if the Government would only have the courage to follow the example of the Government of New Zealand, it would be the most statesmanlike gesture they have yet made.
When Senators ask us to copy Australia and New Zealand in one respect, they should be prepared to consider adopting the policy of these States in other directions, in respect of matters which really govern the question of industrial disputes. Here is what the State does in New Zealand; I am again quoting the ex-Attorney-General, Sir John Findlay:—
"The State not only owns, and has in the main constructed, the railways, but has adopted the settled policy of prohibiting the construction and working of any railway by private enterprise. Nearly all our city and borough tramways are municipally owned and operated. The State has acquired, to a substantial extent by compulsion, large pastoral estates and divided them among landless would-be settlers. It has lent these settlers money for farming purposes at the lowest possible rates of interest, and on the most favourable terms. It has engaged extensively in ordinary banking. It has opened and worked coal mines. It has erected and conducted saw mills for the supply of a portion of its requirements. It has extensively engaged in life and fire insurance. It has acquired land and erected many houses thereon for workmen generally. It has cooperated as a helpful and unremunerated partner with those engaged in nearly every branch of production. It has its own workshops for the manufacture of railway rolling stock and similar requirements. It owns and operates a certain number of steamers and has erected tourists' hotels and manages many tourist resorts."
Now, if we are asked to accept one part of the policy adopted in those countries, I suggest that the Seanad must be prepared to consider the adoption of the whole social and labour policy, and if so, Labour is quite prepared to discuss the proposition on its merits, including compulsory arbitration. It is illogical to cull one small item out of a whole chain, of which that item is a mere link, and to say "This is the thing for Ireland," whilst closing one's eyes to, or conveniently forgetting the existence of, the chain from which the single link has been purloined. This is a grand country for what are popularly known as "stunts." The latest "stunt" is "Wages must come down." Every Tom, Dick and Harry anxious for a newspaper paragraph, and who is not personally affected, bawls out this parrot cry on every conceivable occasion, with monotonous regularity. Nobody seems to take up the cry of "Greater efficiency,""More up-to-date methods,""Better workshop and market organisation,""Better advertising of what we produce,""Earlier adoption of modern equipments." No; the easy and the lazy way is to cut wages.
It is a well-known and regrettable fact that Irish employers as a class are notoriously non-progressive, and that their employees, as well as the country generally, suffer as a result. Their policy seems to be to take the least possible risk, and obtain the maximum amount of profit in the minimum period of time. The long view is rarely taken. Hotel keepers at seaside resorts fleece their visitors for a season, and ensure that they shall not come back there again. We have the Fiscal Enquiry Committee giving the following examples of the non-progressive character of Irish manufacturers:—
"In the tanning and boot making industries, the failure at a critical period to equip themselves with the most modern appliance marks the arrest of their growth. In the tobacco industry, the failure to foresee the importance which the consumption of cigarettes would have upon the development of their trade left Irish manufacturers behind in the race for securing the Irish market. When cigarettes from their competitors were being brought into every Irish town, they had not set up the plant necessary for their manufacture in any quantity. The taste for other than Irish cigarettes was formed and Irish manufacturers awoke too late to the double task of securing the home market and altering the home taste. Again, in the clay pipe making industry the witnesses stated that the clay for the manufacture is imported from the South of England, and the existing supplies of native clay have ceased to be worked; even the imported clay is brought by a roundabout and needlessly expensive route."
These may be taken as an example of Irish traders and manufacturers generally, and until they develop a more enterprising spirit, in a world of competition in which a certain amount of risk is inevitable, if success is to be secured, they will never be able to provide decent conditions of employment; they will be unable to hold their own with foreign competitors, and the country as a whole will be the poorer. If there was less talk about "cutting down" and more about "speeding up" the outlook would be much brighter.
I believe with Ruskin that "That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings." Hence, I believe that Irish industrial development is not going to be fostered, nor that general peace which is so sorely needed going to be secured, by the tomahawk onslaughts of employers, nor the axe-swinging propensities of the Minister for Finance.
This indiscriminate frenzy for merely "cutting down" indicates a bankruptcy of statesmanship, and instead of getting men to put their backs into their work will compel them, in defence of their livelihood, to put their "backs to the wall."
I think it would be well that the position of some of us who may be unable to vote for this motion in its exact form should be made clear. Senator O'Farrell has given us a long statement, containing a large amount of proof, and a large amount of subject matter which could be controverted at about the same length, if it was desirable or thought wise to do so. The motion suggests that you are to have Courts of Conciliation, the decision of which will be final. It also suggests Courts of Arbitration, the decision of which will be final. Personally, I have no doubt that there is not one member of the Seanad who does not wish to see Conciliation Courts which will reach final decisions. If that is all that is meant by the motion, I do not think there will be much difficulty in voting for it. At the same time, I do not think the Seanad ought to ask the Government to set up Courts which could be regarded as compulsory Arbitration Courts; that is, to which the parties who take part should be regarded as bound definitely by the decision.
There may be circumstances—I can quite conceive circumstances arising— in which it would be wise if both parties would agree to court arbitration which would be binding on each party for a period. I think it is extremely likely that the circumstances in which we will find ourselves will make some such Courts almost essential. I do not see how, as a general principle, we can support compulsory arbitration. I put it, too, from the employer's side. If my business is not paying, and if I cannot find a method of making it pay, am I to be coerced by the decision of a compulsory Arbitration Court to go on until I become a bankrupt? That is one side. The other side is the side of the worker. He will undoubtedly be struggling for improved conditions, conditions which, if I know anything, most employers, particularly those represented here, would like to see, but which at the moment most of us are practically powerless to bring about.
Personally I would be well content if business were flourishing, and wages were higher. That would not worry me. It would indicate a healthy state of affairs. I would like to see Irishmen developing their own land efficiently so that we would be able to have wages higher. At the same time we know that for the next twelve months we are not going to have that state of affairs. Unless there is some kind of intelligible understanding and give and take between employers and employees there is going to be loss on both sides. Some kind of arrangement has to be made. I care not whether it is by some Government machinery or not, so long as it is there, by which at least conversation will be ensured before you have a strike. A strike, even for a day, in most large concerns, means a very heavy loss. I think that some kind of machinery is essential by which, certainly in larger concerns, there should be without any question at all conversations, and if possible conciliation, before strikes take place. I think it will be more or less generally admitted that you cannot apply compulsion generally to the decision of such Arbitration Courts. Looking at it for a moment from the point of view of the arbitrator, I should like to point out that it is almost impossible for an arbitrator, or for the President of a Commission, or for any man who is acting in the position of conciliator, to do more than try and adjust the differences because he has no principle upon which he can issue a verdict. When a case comes before a court of law the Judge has a code of law which he has to interpret and on which he can issue a verdict or give a decision. If it comes before a jury, the jury is asked for a decision on a question of facts. When you come to a question of a trade dispute for consideration say by a court of arbitration or by a Commission, there is no definite standard which can be adopted.
Take for instance the question of the cost of living or of what is a decent standard of livelihood. The Postal Commission has been referred to. We sat for days listening to budgets put forward by representatives of the different sections of the staff and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that no two of them agreed as to what they considered to be a decent standard of living. I am not complain-have nothing on which we can say: have nothing on which we can say "This is a proper standard of living at the present moment, and therefore we make our recommendations accordingly." A great many other questions arise also. The question arises, what is to be the basis of promotion? Is an employer or superintendent or person responsible for promotion to disclose to the man who is disgruntled why he should not have been promoted? On the other hand, is the employer to have the right to promote whom he wishes? I only wish to show that there is no standard which an Arbitration Board can definitely adopt. Until some such standard can be found or generally adopted it would be practically impossible and unwise to attempt anything in the nature of compulsory arbitration. To that extent I am in agreement with Senator O'Farrell, though I do not agree with all his conclusions or arguments. Incidentally I have not by any means the optimism he has as to the ability of employers to deal with the average K.C. I think the K.C. would be likely to come off the best on most occasions.
There is one other point. Reference has been made to the Postal Commission. I do not propose to enter into that question here, except to say, as reference has been made to it, that I do not personally agree with the action of the Government, but I would not like it suggested that that Commission was in any way an arbitration, or that either side put its case before it. They were not in any way bound to accept its decision, nor would I like it to be thought, as has been frequently stated in the Press, that that Commission unanimously recommended any general increase in public expenditure, because we do not admit that we did so. I think that Senator Haughton has done well in bringing the subject before us, because it calls further public attention to the exceedingly serious problems which are before us, and which we will have to deal with in the new year. At the same time, I think it would be wiser if he were to withdraw the motion than to ask us to pass it, just exactly in the form in which it is on the Orders of the Day. If we, as a Seanad, with full responsibility, were going to make a definite suggestion or request to the Government, I think a Committee should be appointed and, if it is the desire of the Seanad, a message should be sent to the Government, dealing with industrial arbitration or industrial conciliation. Then I think the Seanad should appoint a representative Committee and make a definite suggestion with agreed proposals, but not in just this vague resolution. Although for that reason I could not support the resolution, I think it well that it should be brought forward by Senator Haughton.
In moving this resolution, Senator Haughton referred to the question of unemployment. He said that there was no question of more pressing importance. He further stated that he believed unemployment had been largely brought about through industrial disputes. Speaking as a large employer, and as a member of the Employers' Association, he believed he voiced the feelings of many employers when he said that they would place more value upon the stabilisation of wages than upon reductions of wages. In this motion he proposes, in order to avoid industrial friction throughout the Saorstát, that the Seanad should request the Government to devise means whereby conciliation and arbitration courts might be constituted immediately, the decision of which would be final, which in effect means compulsory arbitration.
At the outset I want to say that the workers of this country are opposed to compulsory arbitration. There is at present machinery in existence whereby, when disputes do occur between employers and employees, they can be brought together in conference to discuss their differences, and there is also machinery whereby, if they fail to adjust their differences in conference by mutual agreement, their cases can be submitted to arbitration. But, judging by recent happenings, I am convinced from my knowledge of the point of view of the workers of this country that there is a growing disinclination to submit their cases to arbitration. I have had experience of arbitration in industrial disputes and of conferences, under three Governments. I had experience in dealing with the British Government; I had experience in dealing with the Republican Government, and I have had experience in dealing with the Free State Government, and from my experiences of the manner in which these arbitrations were conducted, and because of the nature of the appointments of the arbitrators, I am not in the least bit surprised at the growing disinclination of the workers of this country to participate in them or to submit their cases to arbitration. I have had the experience of being at an arbitration in connection with a dispute between farmers and farm labourers. And whom do you think was the arbitrator? A farmer. I have been present at an arbitration where I quoted a decision given by a former arbitrator, and I heard the Secretary of a Farmers' Union deliberately say: "Yes, but that gentleman will never arbitrate again for the farmers." And he was right. He did not. I have a recollection of an arbitrator appointed to deal with disputes between farm labourers and farmers where a man who continually gave reductions in the wages of farm labourers was appointed again and again to arbitrate in these disputes. Judging by that experience, I do not think it would be human to expect farm labourers to submit their cases to such an arbitration.
The mover of this resolution dealt with the question of unemployment. He said, that in his opinion, unemployment was largely due to industrial disputes. I do not agree with that at all. No doubt a certain amount of unemployment does accrue from industrial disputes, but I do not agree that unemployment generally is due to industrial disputes. The proposal outlined by Senator Haughton is, in fact, that the Seanad should agree, and request the Government to set up these arbitration courts, the decisions of which shall be final. I briefly told you some of my experiences of the arbitrators appointed by Government Departments. I could proceed much further in the matter, only that I do not want to take up your time. When we talk about compulsory arbitration, and when we refer to compulsory arbitration in Australia, we have got to remember that in Australia there is a Labour Government. If there was a Labour Government in this country, would the employers of this country be so anxious for compulsory arbitration, if the Labour Government had the appointment of the arbitrators? From our recent experiences we have come to the deliberate conclusion that arbitrators appointed by the present Government would not be fair to the working-class people. Some members of this Seanad may not agree with that statement, but I propose to prove it. The President in the Dáil on the 25th September, when there was a discussion on the question of industrial disputes, made a statement to the effect that it was unreasonable to expect the reduction of wages unless there was a reduction of prices. He went on to refer to the Commission on Prices that had been set up by the Government, and he clearly gave it as his deliberate opinion that it was unreasonable to expect reductions in wages until there was a corresponding reduction in prices, which, if it means anything, means that the Government had no intention of reducing the present standard of living. The President in making that statement conveyed, certainly, that it was not the intention of the Government to reduce the standard of living, and he referred to the Commission on prices and its failure. The Commission on prices failed in so far that it had not the power to compel all those whom it summoned to give evidence, to give the evidence that was required.
The unanimous recommendation of this Commission was that there was room for a reduction in prices of a certain commodity which is largely used by the working classes. No attempt was made by the Government to put the recommendation of this Commission into operation. Let me proceed further. At a later stage there was a discussion in the Dáil on the question of unemployment, and the President, speaking, I presume, on behalf of the Government, stated that the Government is not concerned with making an offensive on wages, and he hoped that point would be appreciated by the Labour Deputies. That is all very well, but recent events have proved that the Government have changed their mind in this matter. The Government, in the first place, state, through the mouth of the President, that you cannot expect a reduction in wages unless there be a reduction in the cost of living. In the second place, the Government, through the mouth of the President, state that they have no intention of making an attack on wages, and they hope the Labour Party will bear that in mind. Now what are the facts? The Government have made an attack on wages, but they have not the courage to deal with the profiteers.
Through the Local Government Department they have sent circular letters to the County Councils, District Councils and Corporations in Ireland, demanding that the wages rate to workers be reduced. They insist on that as a condition of their forwarding out of the Road Fund monies to which the respective County Councils and Corporations in Ireland are entitled. They have made it a condition of these grants that in certain districts in Ireland the wages to be paid for this class of work shall be 25/- a week. If that is not an attack on wages I do not know what an attack on wages means. Senator Douglas speaks about a decent standard of living, and about budgets put forward. But no budget that can be put forward can prove that 25/- a week is a living wage for any family. The author of "Livelihood and Poverty," who is a recognised authority on these matters, shows by his figures that at the present value of money it will take at least 30/- a week to provide food alone for a husband, wife and three children. And the Government Department who are not going to make an attack on wages have decided that a man employed on road work in certain districts in Ireland shall be paid at the rate of 25/- a week. Is it reasonable to expect that any body of workers in this country could agree to any conditions of compulsory arbitration proposed by a Government who have betrayed the workers, and I have no hesitation in saying it, in such a manner as this? They would object to such a Government having the appointment of the arbitrator. They feel that the dice are loaded against them on every occasion, and so they are not prepared to submit questions in dispute between them and employers to arbitrators appointed by the Government. I have had experience of Government appointed arbitrators, and I say the experience we have had of Government appointed arbitrators, whether appointed by the British Government, the Republican Government or the Free State Government, does not justify us in welcoming it. For these reasons we have no hesitation in opposing this motion.
I venture to suggest, if we are to vote on this resolution, it does require some alteration or amendment before we vote on it. I think the speeches that have succeeded the speech made by Senator Haughton in moving the motion, make it clear that it deals with two things which are really incompatible. The motion speaks of conciliation, which Senator Farren pointed out cannot be compulsory. It speaks of arbitration which may, or may not, be compulsory; though the word "compulsory" is not used in fact, it is implied. Therefore, it seems to me, it is really a contradiction in terms. I should like to know, for one, what we are to vote on, and I would suggest as a possibility to Senator Haughton, if the last sentence were left out, and if it were left merely as Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration, there might be some unanimity in voting. I do not know.
I support Senator Haughton's motion. He is, like thousands of others of us, looking for a remedy for the very great evil in this country. I do not think that any of us care for compulsion, but as a general rule we have to submit to it. Only a few months ago we had a Land Bill passed here, which gave power by the Minister to his Commissioners to take lands compulsorily from the existing owners for the relief of congests. Nobody likes that. But it has to be done for the public good. If the Labour Party has any other remedy, any better remedy, let them tell us. I have not heard their remedy for this evil, so far. But really strikes in this country have become so chronic that it is nearly impossible to keep any industry going. We would very much rather pay high wages, and I am an advocate of high wages, but I want constant work.
It is not so much high wages as broken work. We have had a dockers' strike here in Dublin lasting for about four months. I understand that directly and indirectly that strike cost over one million of money to this country, and at the end of that four months neither person on one side nor the other was one penny better off than when it started. That is a thing we do not want. So far as I know the employers in this country, I am sure they are anxious, the best of them, to pay good wages. We are quite willing to do so, but we cannot pay high wages if there is not steady employment. It is out of the question. If there is any other remedy to be found—I do not know whether this motion provides a remedy—but if it does it would be worth trying. Any experiment would be worth trying to stop the present state of affairs. One of the Labour representatives says the Government have persistently penalised the workers. I am not able to speak for the Government, but I certainly say that that statement is not accurate, and what we say is that the Government have glorified the workers and allowed them to do pretty much as they like.
On 25/- a week.
That is a detail. We are now going into the question of what is the best principle, and I am sure if Senator Haughton's plan appeals to the Government, and if some sort of court of arbitration is set up, and if you get a Justice of the High Court, and that the claims of both sides are put before him, I do not know where you are to look for justice if you will not get it there.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it is possible Senator Haughton's motion might receive pretty general acceptance, if he were to allow it in this form, to embody the suggestion made by Senator The Earl of Kerry—"to devise means whereby Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration which would command the confidence of the public generally might be constituted immediately."
I fall in fully with that suggestion. We want to be unanimous if possible on this matter.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That eliminates all reference to the finality of these Courts, which, as the Earl of Kerry pointed out very wisely, was inconsistent with the character of the solution suggested.
The words used there are "to secure the confidence of the public generally." How is that to be done?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I followed the wording of the resolution, which is "to devise means whereby Courts of Conciliation and Arbitration might be constituted immediately, of which the decisions should be final, and which would command the confidence of the public generally."
The trouble there is that it does not deal with the two parties at all who are the vital parties in this matter.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, they are members of the public.
Yes, but their interests fall apart when they come to be employers and employed. Of course, we might pass this resolution, and a dozen like it, without any effect in reality, but there is no use asking for a court of arbitration unless it has the confidence of the employers and the employed. Now, how the Government are to come in to establish such a court, I really do not see. In anything I have ever seen of Governments coming in, they have had to use more or less compulsion. Our friends on the Labour benches seem to think it is always used against Labour, but I am afraid the employers—if they were entering into a debate upon the point— would say that the Government's interference in these matters has been much more largely used against them than against Labour. But these are matters of detail. I think all will agree with me in this, that, unless both employers and employees have a Board of Arbitration to which they can go with confidence that the result will be a fair and reasonable one, and that there will be confidence in the justice of a court of arbitration, there is no use in appointing a court of arbitration at all.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Would your view be met by inserting the words "which would command the confidence of both sides and of the public generally"?
Yes, certainly.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Then it would read "That with the object of avoiding industrial friction throughout the Saorstát between employers and employed, the Seanad earnestly request the Government to devise means whereby courts of conciliation and arbitration might be constituted... which would command the confidence of both sides and of the public generally."
What is the meaning of a Court? What power would they have?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That would depend upon the nature of the dispute. It is impossible for me to tell you what the subject matter of the arbitration would be. One would never know until the dispute arose.
If it was a question of wages, would the court have power to fix arbitrarily the wages?
I should like to say a few words from the point of view of the employers in the agricultural industry. We do not feel that even in the present form the motion is altogether acceptable, and personally I do not quite appreciate what the effect of the last amendment to the motion would be. It strikes me in this way—and Senator O'Farrell has provided me with most of my arguments—that it may be quite possible to maintain this standard we all admit to be desirable in certain industries, such as the distributive trade and the transport business; but at whose expense is it to be provided? It is going to be provided, in my opinion, at the expense of the country's main industry—agriculture—and you are passing it on to agriculture, which can pass it on to nobody else. To make that possible at all in the logical and economic sense, you must fix prices; otherwise you will merely fix prices for the farmer, who will have to bear the burden. Farming is a peculiar industry, without very wide flexibility. It may give employment to a large number of men or to a small number of men. We have heard of some farmers who only employ themselves and their dogs. Well, if an industry cannot stand existing wages to raise the existing wages will only lead to further unemployment, and further seeking after unemployment doles. That does not get you any further, but gets you right away from the very fundamentals of the problem, which is to get increased production. That is the only way you can ever settle this very tangled question, and, of course, even then you will always leave a certain amount of unrest and upheaval, and, therefore, no form of arbitration can ever deal with the matter so far as agriculture is concerned without accumulative fixing of prices. This is not referred to in the amendment, and I cannot support it.
Question—"That the motion, as amended, be adopted"—put and agreed to.