The Press Wednesday March 1, 1922. Pay and Work.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17392, 1 March 1922, Page 6

The Press Wednesday March 1, 1922. Pay and Work.

In all discussions of.'the effect of the ".go slow" policy facts'are worsi any quantity of ) unsupported generalities, true though these may be as far as they go. It has, for instance, been stated on several occasions that the cost of shipping our produce Home is materially increased by the fact that the wharf labourers receive higher pay for considerably less work- than was the case somo years ago. Most people—everyone connected- with shipping and the meat industry—know this to be correct, but some. facts supplied by Mr George Mitchell, M.P. for Wellington South, who has made a specialty of investigating the cost; and efficiency of labour on the Wellington waterfront, make the position quite clear. He has prepared figures dealing with the pay received, and the amount of work done for it, by the Wellington Harbour Board casual wharf employees, who number about one-third of the total employed. Mr Mitchell's figures, illustrated by a graph, Bhow that there has been a decided improvement in efficiency as compared with the previous year, but also indicate that labour is still 18 per cent, less efficient than it i was in 1915. This reduced efficiency meant ft l<ta.pf about £IB,OOO in the year, the total for the! six years following 1915 being about £86,338. These figures refer to only one-third of the labour employed, and as there is no reason to believe that they are any less efficient than the other two-thirds, the, total loss may be put down at £259,000, or, adding the wholesale and retail overhead charges and profit, more £300,000, which* has .eventually been paid by the consumer or the grower. And this is only one port; the grand total for the whole. Dominion would necessarily be very much larger. As regards the first cost of this labour, Mr Mitchell points out that "in 1916 "the average hourly rate (overtime "included) was Is 6jd, for which the "men handled 25161bIper hour, at a "cost of Is 4d per ton. In 1921 the "average hourly rate was 2s 6d, but "the amount handled was only 21881b "per hour, and the cost was 2s 6|d "per ton. Had the 1915 standard of "efficiency been maintained the IS2I " cost would have been 2s 2Jd per ton, "or a saving of 4Jd (14J per cent.)." Mr Mitchell adds that on account of the present financial and economic conditions, which, owing to the effects of the war, are worse than they were in 1915, extravagance or idleness among rich or poor, or a less efficient standard of work at high wages, cannot be long sustained. "We must give more effi"cient labour for the money we re- " ceive, or receive less money for the "labour wet.give." Mr Mitchell himself pins his faith to the first of these two courses. ' 'The cutting of wages,'' he claims, "is not in itself a solution "of the present financial difficulties; "it i 3 only an item, to be avoided if "possible." Unfortunately the situation does not admit of delay. The retrenchment of publio aervants' salaries was an economy forced upon the Government by the financial situation; it was not effected from a mere desire that the publio servants should ears less. And so with the movement towards the reduction of wages; it is not

supported out of animosity to the worker, but solely to expedite that general return to more normal prices which alone can reduce the cost of living permanently. The worker is doing no good to anyone, least of all to himself, by spending an undue amount of time over a job. He is simply helping to put up prices to the people, generally, including himself. The country does not want cheap labour, using the word' "cheap" in its worst sense, but it does need good value in work for the wages paid. As Mr Mitchell has shown with regard to the wharf labourers—and lessened efficiency is not peculiar to that class of labour—the country is not getting it-