WARNING ON WAGES AND PRODUCTION

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31755, 12 August 1968, Page 14

WARNING ON WAGES AND PRODUCTION

An increase inTJroductivity did not necessarily mean an increase in wages and workers should not allow themselves to be “brain-washed" by “glib-talking manufacturers” into accepting any new system until it had been thoroughly checked, said the president of the Canterbury Glassworkers’ Union (Mr S. G. Isherwood) in a supplied statement.

The most interesting factor to emerge from comments by spokesmen for different sections of industry on the recent Arbitration Court decision was the almost unanimous desire of the employers to have any wage increases tied purely to increases in production, Mr Isherwood said. Workers' organisations should be wary of such a system, for although the attitude appeared reasonable and responsible, it would not work in most industries. This was because the complexity of use of raw material, machine-time used related to capital structure, marketing differences, improvements in losses through wastage, and many other factors prevented the worker from knowing the actual increase due to his own effort.

“And I do not know of any company that will throw its books open to the workers’ representatives for confirmation of the employer’s assessment of productivity increases,” Mr Isherwood said. Mr Isherwood quoted ex-

atnples relating to certain products. In one ease, in 1967 13 hours were worked to produce 96 dozen articles, pay being $28.80, while in 1968 the same hours resulted in production of 166 dozen articles but pay of only $15.75 —513.05 less pay for 70 dozen more articles, he said. “The worker gets very little of the cake now, and with enough employer’s mathematical ‘hocus pocus’ they will not even get that shortly.”