BONUS REDUCTION

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17451, 11 May 1922, Page 9

BONUS REDUCTION

DUNEDIN VIEWS,

(arKCIAL TO "xur FBltfS."} DUNEDIN, May 10. Employers in Duncdin are quite outspokeu about iho Arbitration Court's decision. One ot' iho '•"ueads,"' interviewed this morning, said:—"l know the mind of the employers. As a body they are acutely disappointed. They believed they vero acting lor the common good in asking lor a greater reduction in wages than that which is now announced. A reduction of oa is not commensurate with the general state of trade, and the Government Statistician's published figures. If a redaction fairly accordant with the present position had been made, tho employers wero prepared to make tho reductions olfective in the common interests by a further lowering of the price of commodities. Such a proposal was agreed to and announced. Iho effect of tho decision now como to is that the employers will not be able to reduce prices because the cut in wages is too small, and they may have to reduce the number of liands. So the outcome is that the bonus cut will not havo any beneficial effect that can be called appreciable. It will take os per week off the men's wages without giving them an equivalent in an increased purchasing power of their money. We certainly looked for a deeper cut. "We reckoned on at least lis per week, and perhaps 13s. If the cut had been to the extent of 10s we would have been willing to lower prices in tho meantime and wait to see what follows. With no more relief than tho ss, such a change is not possible.'^ A worker who knows tho inner thoughts of Labour was also approached, and his statement runs thus:—"AYe do not agree with the decision of the Arbitration Court. It is stated by tho Court itself that the cost of living is 67 per cent, greater than in 1914, and tho general averairo of wages increase, skilled and unskilled, for tho same period is but 54 to 06 per cent. Somo increases are a little higher than that, others a, little lower; I give you the average. Thp standard of living is less by that percentage than in 1914. The decision of tho Court seems to have been prejudiced by reason of tho action of the Government in reducing the remuneration of the Post and Telegraph Service. The Court, so it appears to me, was placed in this position: That it either had to practically tell the Government that it had no right to cut down iho post and telegraph salaries, or. on the other hand, malco a, cut of this sort in the wages of the general workers. I cannot get away from tho thought , that political influence is dominating the Court. If that view is correct, the consequences threaten to ho disastrous to the industrial welfare of the country,, and may lead to untold • iis. Upon, th-« figures submitted find tho pronouncement of tho Court that tho cost of living is 67 per cent, higher than in 1914. we did not expect any reduction whatever. I cannot foretell what will be dono to express our dissatisfaction. It seems to me that we cannot appoal to any authority outside the Court, but that we have the right of appeal to tho Court itself for a revision of the finding on the ground that it is against the weight of evi deuce."