STANDARD WAGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 201, 25 August 1937, Page 8

STANDARD WAGE.

WORKERS' EVIDENCE. PAY OF APPRENTICES. ANALYSIS OF STATISTICS. With the finish yesterday afternoon of the presentation of both workers' and employers' cases in the Arbitration Court, where the hearing of argument on the fixation of a standard wage for unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled labour Is In progress, the first of the supporting evidence was heard to-day. Mr. Justice OHegan presided, and with him were Messre. W. Cecil Prime and H. L. Monteith. Mr. P. E. Warner, for many years a boilermaker, and now secretary to the Trades Council in Wellington, was called first for the workers. He dealt with the question of apprenticeship, and had selected a number of trades, as typical of all. Referring to a table showing the rates in separate industrial districts, he said the Court would notice a wide difference in the rates of each trade and each district. For example, in the case of a carpenter, the total earnings for five' years in the northern district were £572, while in Wellington they were £364, a difference of £208. Again, a plumber who in six years earned £557 14/ in the northern district earned £455 in Wellington. "The bricklayer apprentice," Mr. Warner added, "receives the magnificent Hum of £377 in all districts, while the plasterer apprentice varies from £520 to £390." Then, during the lad's training, lie had to attend a technical school, or have private training in mathematics, practical geometry, scale drawing and other similar subjects. Mr. Warner then submitted a series of sets of figures, one set classifying industries, a second showing the number of men and women workers from 1926 to 1935, and a third showing the numbers of men and women in the different weekly wage groups. Mr. Warner explained that he had analysed the Government Statistician's figures further because by the use merely of an index figure the true position was obscured. "Index figures," he said, "have to be taken with a small grain of salt." Classification of Industry. In the first set of figures Mr. Warner classified industries under four groups. He took out figures to show the ratio per cent of residue to fixed capital. In the four groups the ratio varied considerably, though, if the four Bets were grouped together, the ratio would be the same as that given by the Government Statistician. To give the Court some idea of the distribution of wages in combined groups he had given the earnings for men and women workers. The average for a normal week for the man was between £3 10/0 and £4 11/ C, and for the woman £1 11/4 to £1 19/6. In 1929 the major portion of the 54,651 wage-earners were grouped between 85/ and 110/, whereas in 1936 the major part of the 57,637 wage-earners were grouped between 75/ and 110/. A further graph showing the lower-paid, or youth, employees, depicted a large increase in youth labour. In 1929 the percentage under a wage of 20/ was 2.34 per cent; under 25/, 4.63 per cent; and under 40/, 5.77 per cent. In 1936 the percentages under those three wage headings were 6.44, 6.65 and 4.74 respectively. . Questioned by Mr. D. I. Macdonald, secretary of the Canterbury Employers' Association, and chief advocate of the employers, Mr. Warner said that what he had described in one set of figures as capital—land, buildings, plant and machinery—did not cover the total capital invested. Mr. Macdonald: Consequently the ratio will not present the exact position? Mr. Warner: Statistics can never be completely accurate. They show trends. Mr. Macdonald said that witness had used those figures to make definite statements about New Zealand's industries. Rates m Skilled Trade*. Witness told his Honor that he was in favour of Dominion awards. They ensured a uniform rate of pay. He could see no reason why employers should object to such an award. At this stage Mr. F. D. Cornwell, one of the representatives of the workers, read a statement on behalf of certain skilled trades, the New Zealand carpenters and joiners. After setting out what constituted a skilled worker, and'stating that the tools owned by the individual tradesman might cost from £20 to £70, Mr. Cornwell stated that in his opinion the margin of payment for skill should be- at least two-fifths above that paid for unskilled work. He specified ■ his reasons:— , .r (1) The fact of five or more years' apprenticeship in learning. (2). The small, wage of the apprenticeship period. (3) The necessity for apprentices to attend night classes -or take correspondence lessons to gain the theoretical knowledge necessary for efficiency. (4) Owing to special training a skilled worker was entitled to an extra rate. 15) Most skilled trades needed an expensive kit of tools, o>f which the upkeep and replacement averaged £3 a year. :6) The skilled worker carried a heavy re ponsibility.