The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1953. General Wage Orders

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27038, 13 May 1953, Page 8

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1953. General Wage Orders

The Government does not seem to have pleased anyone with amendments to the Stabilisation Regulations, least of all the president of the Federation of Labour (Mr F. P.i Walsh). Mr Walsh, however, has not yet made clear his precise (Objections to the regulations, or to I the little that is left of them. It is ' all very well to say that under these regulations the workers are almost I the only section of the community tied to the act and the regulations. For one thing these regulations are intended to benefit the workers. For another, Mr Walsh ignores the fact that other sections of the community : are very definitely tied to the broad policy of stabilisation in other ways. Price control, for example, is still imposed on many commodities. Again, taxpayers pay a large sum annually for subsidies to keep down the cost of living. Without the regulations to which Mr Walsh objects the Federation of Labour could not go to the Court and ask it to vary rates during the currency of awards. In the present context, “vary** means increase, because of the rising cost of living; and Mr Walsh has not seemed concerned with the possibility that at some time the cost of living may fall. He suggests that the regulations prevent the Court from giving a decision that’is fair to the workers (though on other occasions he has come very close to implying that the federation has no confidence in the Court itself). What formula would he suggest the Court be required to follow? The specific considerations that the Court is now required to take into account are movements in the consumers* price index (which measures the cost of living), economic conditions generally, the level and value of production, and relative movements in the incomes of different sections of the community. The price index, which is the most compelling evidence before the Court, is based on the report of a committee presided over by Mr Walsh and including several representatives of the Federation of Labour. Its value for its special

purpose has not been seriously challenged, though it may require revision. For example, the heavy rise in food prices compared with

the more gradual rise in other living costs may have put it somewhat out of balance. That is a matter for statistical experts; but the federation has not asked for any investigation of this possibility. Presumably, therefore, the federation does not object to this item in the Court’s terms of reference. As for general economic conditions and relative movements in incomes, these, and not the cost of living, were the points heavily relied upon by Mr Walsh when he took his last case to the Court If the Court did not accept his submissions on these two points it was not because the Court was.hampered by the regulations, nor did Mr F. C. Allerby, in his memorandum of dissent from the majority decision, suggest that it was. Until Mr Walsh and the federation say just what they do

want it is difficult to see how the regulations could be framed to give a greater opportunity for a fair decision.

g Rather more point attaches to the b regret of the employers that the 0 amended regulations nd longer contain provision for standard wage 8 pronouncements, fdthough this 7 power is not necessary while the s Court is able to keep award rates i in line with last year’s pronouncement. No doubt the provision was removed because of the annoyance of the Federation of Labour when the Court issued not a general order, benefiting equally those who had already had substantial pay increases and those who had not, but a standard wage pronouncement, which benefited the latter section chiefly,, and preserved margins for ! skill For more than 30 years it has been considered that the un- , stable economic conditions that justify general wage orders also justify standard wage pronounce1 ments, which have the -special value of preserving a fundamental ( of the New Zealand arbitration system, a stable relationship among wage rates. However, if the provision for general wage orders is to be abolished next year, there is probably no great reason for the 1 retention of the standard wage pro- ; nouncement provision in the meantime.