A MORAL WAGE FOR WORKMEN. MAY 25, 1895.

*THE WORKER*

BRISBANE, MAY 25, 1895.

Bystanders' Notebook.

MASTER BAKERS' DISPUTE.

The dispute existing between the master bakers of Brisbane is one of those object lessons in industry which is worth noting, as, at its present stage, it is solely confined to employers, and is a telling example of the evils in the present industrial system of production. Briefly, the position is this; Some time ago the majority of the master bakers entered into a compact to regulate the selling price of bread, with a view of preventing cut-throat competition. That compact has been broken, and statements of the most contradictory character have been given as to why it was broken. On the one side by a Bread Trade Joint Committee, and on the other by one of the largest master bakers. The former alleges that the latter was the first to break the agreement, and that it is impossible to sell bread for less than 2 1/2d. per loaf and pay present expenses. Whilst, on the other hand, the master baker, who is now standing alone, alleges that it was the other master bakers who first broke away from the compact, and that bread can be profitably sold for 2d. per loaf, credit, and 1 1/2d. per loaf, cash; that he can do so, and, at the same time, pay his workmen the highest wages given in the trade. As to the wages paid in the baking trade, they range from 30s. to 45s. for journeymen, and the employer bakers admit that carters and foremen work 72 hours per week.

* * *

UNFAIR TO INVOLVE JOURNEYMEN.

It must be recollected that the journeymen bakers have had nothing to do with the breaking of the compact which set the employers' fighting each other; consequently, it would be manifestly unfair to make them in anyway responsible for the actions of the employers. Wage-earners of the present day, however, being divorced from the instruments of production, are, to a great extent, at the mercy of employers whose only object in employing them is that they may make profit out of their labour, hence there is no real bond of sympathy between the employer and emplye'. The only protection that is possible under existing circumstances, by which the latter may be able to maintain a reasonable wage, is through his own union and the Parliament of the country, and the sooner people begin to look this wage question squarely in the face the better will it be for the whole community.

* * *

A MORAL WAGE FOR WORKMEN.

There should be a moral wage paid to workmen which would maintain them and their families in reasonable comfort, and the employer who cannot pay that wage should be prevented by law from carrying on business. The wage-earner has only his labour to depend on for a living and it is monstrous to think that his stomach and the stomachs of those depending on him are oftimes pinched through the unmoral conduct of competing employers, who, rather than recognise that they are unable to successfully compete with others engaged in the same trade commanding more business tact and capital than themselves, prefer to continue the unequal struggle at the expense of the unfortunate workmen.

* * *

SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.

If the unmoral competition continues, the results are easily foreseen. Many master bakers now in business, to prevent themselves from being driven to the wall, as it were, will try to secure themselves at the expense of the wage-earners. But their effort in this direction will not save them. For their successful competitor will follow their example and still continue on the same competing terms with them. This kind of conduct will force the workmen to strike until, in the end, the smaller employer will lose everything and at the same time cause much suffering by the attempts that will be made to compel wage-earners to accept unmoral conditions for their labour. If it is impossible then to prevent the cut-throat competition in the baking trade, it is senseless and inhuman to punish the wage-earner. In the end the manufacturers, whether individually or in in companies or rings, that can produce the most economically, are the ones that are going to win. The shorter this struggle is and with the least amount of suffering, the better will it be for all. From 30s. to 45s. paid to workmen for a week of 72 hours and more are not very moral conditions to work under in a Queensland climate, and by making them less moral will not prevent industry centralising. In order to avoid many heartburnings, employers should make up their minds at the outset that so far as Labour is concerned it should not be made the scapegoat, and if the fittest in this particular industry is to survive the struggle, which undoubtedly they will, let the battle, whilst it is raging between employers, be so conducted that an eight-hour day and moral wage will be maintained for the labour. A fight to a finish on this line will meet with full appreciation from the public generally.

ANTI-SWEATER.

* * *

THE TRUE BASIS OF ENFRANCHISEMENT.

The human inheritance and acquisition may say be concisely called life, liberty, property. Life and Liberty are, by the irrevocable decree of Nature, an indestructible inheritance; property is an acquisition, that is, a creation from the materials spontaneously supplied by nature. Of the three possessions, life and liberty are beyond comparison, more valuable than any form of real property. The function of the legislature is to preserve these three paramount possessions. Life and liberty call aloud in their very nature for superior protection and preservation. Real property, that is, any material product, in which human invention and labour have embodied, is an exchangeable and alienable property; but life and liberty are, in the nature of things, and must be for all time, in exchangeable and inalienable possessions. Clearly, then, out of the three great possessions of life, property stands out the most insignificant. In the enfranchisement of persons the importance attached to real property is, in my judgement, far beyond that which it merits. Property is, of course, an object specially suited for taxation, but it the cardinal duty of the legislature – that of taxation. If a man's right to participate in the franchise was founded solely on financial considerations, and on them alone, he might, perhaps, when his claim is superficially considered, have a right in virtue of his property, by the exclusive expenditure of the revenue thus collected. But neither the qualification of property nor that of residence is the true qualification on which the civil franchise is claimable; it is equitably claimable on the high qualification of manhood or womanhood allegiance. In a community the condition of existence is that each individual professes and exercises an allegiance towards the whole, while the whole extends in return its protection to the individual; thus allegiance to the whole body is the qualifying condition of the franchise established for distribution among all, without any distinction of class or person.

Upon everyone the obligation of allegiance should be imposed, and upon everyone qualified for allegiance should and always must be, the qualification for enfranchisement. And this system of universal enfranchisement, founded upon the qualification of the allegiance of the individual to the whole body, is indispensable to the institution of a truly representative Government.

J.M. Gympie.

* * *

INVENTIONS AND THE TOILER.

Every new invention of great value is welcomed by the public, and it is well that it should be so. But there often comes with it great temporary distress in some quarters. Suppose a factory engaged in producing some article, say in engineering. A new invention comes which renders this article unnecessary. The benefit is to the public, the loss to the manufacturer and his employe's. The manufacturer who has perhaps spent £125,000 on his plant finds it out of date and useless. He cannot compete with the new invention, and is reduced from a state of well-earned – or unearned – competence to poverty, unless he can raise capital to buy the new invention. In any case much of his plant is rendered valueless.

He may be able to realise a small sum on his antiquated plant by selling it for old iron, &c. This man's loss is often overlooked. But there is one on whom trouble falls more heavily, on whom, in fact, actual starvation descends. The conditions of life force a man to become a specialist. This is one of the drawbacks against division of labour. This drawback was not so keenly felt of yore, when division of labour was less complete and when each man could turn his hand to several trades. Now, if he wishes to live, he must excel in one trade to endure competition, and his whole life must be given to it. A man devotes his whole life, say, to working a special lathe or engine. He attains remarkable skill in this special line. But suppose this machine to become useless by reason of a new invention. The man is utterly helpless. Society must bear the blame, if any there be! Here is a man who has spent forty years at one class of work. He is too old to learn a new trade. Take a compositor thrown out by the linotype. He is useless at anything else. It was the constitution of society which forced him to become a specialist, and society as represented by the State must support him, not as a pauper, but as a man who has a right to help until he finds other escape from his troubles. All such help should be given in such a way as to prevent any playing on the State's fraternal care and kindness. But as the State reaps the benefit of specialism it should bear the drawbacks too.

ARDIEL.