The Dominion TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1923. THE LATEST WAGE PRONOUNCEMENT

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 179, 17 April 1923, Page 6

The Dominion TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1923. THE LATEST WAGE PRONOUNCEMENT

Thf announcement of the Arbitration Court that it has decided to „a k ;" „ Ze“ notion in .Undard wag.t Ido the bn I-yoa, Jhidh oners on May 1 will occasion little surprise. Guided solely by the sixmonthly moving average of the cost of living, on which it works the Court would have ordered a reduction of two shillings pel week in the wages of adult male workers, but it adduces several reasons for leaving they stand. of towards hard e n in R prices,” the continued increase in rents to which the Court alludes Fn Tomewhat general terms, and even the general improvement t notes in financial and economic conditions, possibly did less to influence its decision than a belief that a small wage reduction, if made, would do more to occasion friction and dissatisfaction than to lieve and stimulate industry. , . ~ ... Accepting the limits the Court has set for itself in dealing with wage adjustment, it may be admitted that the policy pursued on the present occasion is sound, or at all events expedient. Ihis being faid, some exception may reasonably be taken to the Court s assigning as one of its reasons for making no wage-reduction for the ensuing half-year “that in many trades the employers did not find, it necessary to put the last reduction of money wages into operation. Amongst other things this may bo regarded as an injunction to employers always to make any reductions authorised by the Court lest their failure to do so should prejudice them unfair y oni later occasions. In any case, the Court obviously should not look to tho actions of particular employers, or of employers in particular industries, for even partial and limited guidance in its general policy of duty of the Court is to form its decision after taking the relevant facts of the case as a whole into consideration The action of individual employers or groups of employers is or may bo governed to a great extent by other factors than those to which tba Court is bound to attach predominant importance. Some employers who refrained from making the previous reduction ordered by the Court were guided rather by sentimental than purelv economic reasons. There are cases in which no reduction was made* in the wages of those already employed, but new employees were paid the amount awarded by the Court. Probably it is nearer the truth to say that employers tn many trades did not make the previous reduction authorised by the Court because viewing all the circumstances it was not worth while than that they refrained because they “did not find it necessary to make the reduction. . When the Court issued its pronouncement six months ago a number of employers plainly explained the difficulty in which they found themselves The reduction ordered was so small that if made it could have little’effect on prices. There were no obvious means of passing it on to the public. It was for this reason, and not because a reduction in money wages was not necessary, that a proportion of the employers elected to leave wages as they were. Time has strengthened an opinUJn wo expressed a year ago that a bold adjustment of money wages undertaken at that time would have operated to the benefit of all sections in this country, and that wageearners ultimately would have benefited most of ah. A fairly substantial reduction of standard money wages a year ago would have reacted speedily on prices, and probatdv would have done more" to stimulate industry than the drastic wage-reductions effected before and since that time in Great Britain. In this country such an adjustment would have given great immediate relief to primary industry, and the benefit thus gained would soon have been shared by all local industries. The conditions established at the same time would have favoured an all-round competitive reduction in prices. In its discretion, however, and acting jindoubtcdly with the best intentions, the Court considered it wise to attempt a gradual adjustment to new conditions. This policy, based rather upon immediate expediency than upon the root demands of economic readjustment, is no doubt continued logically in the latest pronouncement. It may not be out o£ place to suggest that dangers are involved in continuing indefinitely the general adjustment of standard wages with reference to the “cost of living.” This basis perhaps mot fairly well the economic disorders of the later war years and early postwar period, but it is purely arbitrary, and its continued use tends to divert attention from the realities which must be studied if industry is to flourish and real wages are to be progressively increased. In a country like this it is impossible to justify the continued use of the “cost of living” as a basis of wage-adjustment except, perfiaps, in the case of the lower grades of unskilled workers. Wages broadly should be regarded as what they are, a part and share nf the output of industry. The most meticulous analysis of the cost of living throws little light on the means of increasing production and increasing wages. On the other hand, rapid and sustained progress might easily be made towards these results if employers and workers developed the habit of getting together and considering how, in their mutual interests, industry might be made more efficient and production increased.