THE BASIC WAGE

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 19, 17 October 1930, Page 10

THE BASIC WAGE

Position of Labourers FIXING BY STATUTE Ministers Refuse Request "The Government has no intention of taking the duty of fixing wages on to its own shoulders,” declared the ActingPrime Minister, Hon. E. A. Ransom, when replying to a request by a deputation from the General Labourers’ Union that approached him yesterday morning to ask that the basic wage for general labourers should be fixed by Parliament so that they might bo assured of a living wage. The deputation was introduced by Mr. R. Semple, M.P. The president cf the union. Mr. T. L. Barker, held that the basic wage was based on the wrong principle. They wanted to see a wage fixed by statute. The secretary of the union, Mr. P. Butler, said it was not the intention of the deputation to enter into a controversy regarding reduction of wages, but to place a case before the Government concerning wages received by labourers or other unskilled workers. To-day the average person believed that the basic wage worker received £4/0/8 a week, but that was entirely misleading. Some 90 per cent, of the SOOO workers they represented did not receive anything like that wage. It was desirable that where intermittent work was concerned provision should be made to enable the workers in such occupations to earn a wage comparative to the standard of living. There was no other occupation in the country so casual and intermittent as that, of builders’ labourers and general labourers. High Rentals. The wagfe of the labourer in New Zealand. said Mr. Butler, did not exceed £3/15/- a week, and surely no one would say that that was an adequate wage in these enlightened times. How could a man sustain a home, wife and family on sucli a miserable wage? There were cases in which men on the basic wage were paying £2/7/6 a week for rent. The principle that’the labourer was entitled to a bonus to counteract the casual nature of his work was recognised in Australia, where in most of the awards a bonus of 20 per cent, was included. Mr. Butler alleged that there were numerous contractors who stood over their men. and when they found that they were not doing so much work as they did when they were first engaged dismissed them and replaced them with other men.

Mr. P. O’Rourke supported the remarks of the previous speakers. The Minister of Labour, Hon. S. G. Smith, said that his sympathy was with the lower-paid man. “I have lived the life of the lower-paid man,” he said, “and so long as I am in Parliament I want to .do my best to help that man. The question raised by the deputation is a very difficult and a very important one. It is a very difficult matter for the Government to interfere with the Arbitration Court. Say, for instance, that the Government interfered with an •award of the court nt the request of the employers, every worker in the country would have a kick.” Very Big Question. The Acting-Prime Minister said the point raised by various speakers opened UP a very big question indeed. What their request amounted to was that they should be guaranteed a certain wage irrespective of the quantitv of work they did. If Parliament fixed a definite wage they could not expect the employer to find tlie money. The necessary money would have to be found in other directions, and that would probably mean that the primary producer would have to bear the burden. The average dairy farmer at present was working long hours and was not earning on (he average anything more than the basic wage fixed for labourers. He had been impressed by the statement that some workers were paying as much as £2/7/6 for rent. If that were so. it was an impossible position and should be inquired into. “The suggestion that we should legislate to transfer the powers of tlie Arbitration Court to Parliament will be out of the question at any time and particularly nt present.” concluded Mr. Ransom. “The Government has no intention of taking tlie duty of fixing wages on to its own shoulders.”