"Industrial Relations in New Zealand"

A Critical Review of Dr A. E. C. Hare's Report

Large volumes with grey paper covers and unpretentious titles printed above official badges, should be recommended to all University students as a type of book worthy of special attention; doubly so when the imprint on the cover is the official badge of Victoria College. These books are often full of startling opinions and strange conclusions, and the latest example, Dr Hare's Report on 'Industrial Relations in New Zealand,' is no exception.

This report is the outcome of the "enlightened generosity' of Mr H. Valder of Hamilton who endowed Victoria College to enable it to establish a temporary Research Fellowship in Social Relations in Industry, the purpose being to secure an investigation into the problems of social and industrial relations more particularly in New Zealand with special reference to the relations of labour and capital to industry with a view to discovering means that will make for harmony in those relations.' Dr hare is the present Research Fellow under this generous endow page 13 ment and he has taken his task very seriously, with 'a wide discriminating purpose in clear contrast against the blind habits of brutes,' and all his deeper thoughts, his findings and his recommendations, are now between two grey paper covers.

Dr Hare begins with a chapter on `The Causes of Industrial Unrest' prefaced with a definition of his subject. Carefully he States that 'Just because the ownership of property and industrial organisation settles how the income of society shall be distributed amongst its members, industrial unrest inevitably takes on wider forms of political doscontent... A distinction must, however, be made between industrial and other forms of social unrest ... A distinction which is largely artificial.' (P. 14.) And upon this artificial distinction Dr Hare builds a whole pyramid of argument that is so unreal and naive that one cannot help thinking, at first, that he is talking with his tongue in his cheek. In a factory, the reasons for spells of overtime, enforced idleness, factory rules, etc., 'may not often be explained; and this may easily give rise to suspicions that their purpose is simply the better exploitation of the worker.' (P.43.) And 'Under the existing social organisation, industrial work is usually carried on for a profit.' (P. 19.) What remarkable insight!

The reasons for discontent amongst the working-class are given at some length. The weakness of the presentation is unimportant; it in in Chapter Two, 'The Remedies.' that Dr Hare shows himself not only naive but quite illogical. Having said that all industry of any size is run for profit, that is, that capitalism is distinguished by the profit motive of its organisation, he proposes that, 'Without goodwill all else must fail. It is primarily, therefore, to methods of encouraging good-will that we must look in seeking a remedy for industrial ills.' (P. 49.) That gentile fascist, Frank Buchman of the Oxford Group, has grounds for an accusation of plagiarism against Dr Hare! However, the good doctor has his own practical applications of 'good-will' to suggest. In a state of full employment workers should 'learn voluntarily to restrict their demands for wage increases.' (P. 51.) And the employer should ensure that he will not be dismissed unless 'Economic conditions so change as to make it impossible to retain his services. Thus, though the right of dismissal must be retained as the ultimate sanction for discipline...' (P. 71.) In substance, the workers must reduce their demands while the capitalists retain full power! No worker, and no student who is interested in changing the present class society, will accept this sort of 'goodwill.' What is this talk of 'the right of dismissal'? In this twentieth century a society already exists where the sources of industrial unrest are forever ended. Dr Hare should study the constitution of the U.S.S.R., particularly Article 118: 'Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment ... The right to work is ensured by the steady growth of the forces of Soviet Society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crisis, and the abolition of unemployment.' Can Dr Hare imagine the working-class ever accepting a capitalist's 'right of dismissal'?

But one realises as Dr Hare develops his argument that he is not concerned with improving conditions in the interests of the working-class. He accepts capitalism as the inevitable condition of society. In fact, all may be well with the workers of New Zealand: 'It is not possible to say whether or not there are working class families which lack the primary necessities of life.' (P.37.) There are not sufficient statistics. Dr hare should spend an afternoon in Frederick St. or Tui St. or Sages Lane; and he should have afternoon tea with Harry Squires.

But the good doctor has accepted the present system. He sees industrial unrest as an upsetting phenomenon that spoils the smooth running of industry. In particular militant unionism is bad for industry. 'The extent to which strikes are resorted to depends chiefly, though not wholly, upon the strength of unionism amongst the workers.' (P. 47.) 'The attention of unions should be directed far more than it has been to making constructive plans for increasing the efficiency of industry. By these means only can the unions earn the recognition of employers as a force not wholly inimical to their interests, acquire the right of consultation, and thus take part in the development of industry. Constructive activity of this kind would do much in the long run to improve industrial relations.' (P. 322.) Said the ignominious Dr. Ley!

One would fill a book in criticizing Dr Hare's Report as it should be dealt with. The substance of his philosophy is the 'corporate state.' Mussolini's apologists also talked of 'incorporating the unions as part of the productive process.' Read Brady's 'Spirit and Structure of German Fascism' to see how moribund capitalism preaches the 'common interests of workers and employers' and 'Works Councils' and the end of militant, revolutionary activity amongst the working-class.

Dr Hare has his programme for the defence of capitalism in New Zealand, based on page 14 his artificial distinction of industrial unrest. Part three of the Report is modestly entitled 'Recommendations.' The first of these is concerned with factory conditions, the cleaning of floors, walls and windows, and the application of specific safeguards to machinery, and cloakrooms, washing arrangements and dining rooms. The second brings forward suggestions for 'profit-sharing' (so dear to Mr Holland!) and 'Works Councils,' 'The Works Councils should not discuss any matters connected with the award and should not be allowed to become the scene of bargaining. Every endeavour should be made to make the discussions of the Councils as constructive as possible.' (P. 314.) Dr Hare may talk about the necessity for strong 'unions' but the objective results of the application of his recommendations would mean the end of all unionism in favour of a form of class collaboration that would improve nothing but the exploitation of the workers themselves. Of course it is also 'Essential to the maintenance of good industrial relations that the Employers' Federation should remain as strongly organised as possible' (P. 316.)

Unions are, in the present circumstances, 'Largely artificial creations of the law.' Dr Hare is worried about the workers who do not wish to belong to unions. He becomes indignant about the present use of union funds to finance labour political organisations. But this talk of industrial democracy and the benefits of his own type of 'unionism' will not deceive the class-conscious, or the student of social change. Dr Hare's Report is of service to none but the capitalist class of New Zealand, irrespective of the doctor's intentions.

No, it is unlikely that militant unionists will support him in advocating university courses for union officials. 'Unfortunately the University Colleges are regarded by the trade union movement with some hostility, and attitude for which there is some justification.' (P. 332.) It is indeed unfortunate. This makes it more than necessary to prove to the workers of New Zealand that, in spite of learned doctors, many students do not accept as inevitable industrial unrest and the decadent inevitable industrial unrest and the decadent capitalist society from which it is inseparable.

—A.H.F.