Equal Sacrifice?

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 53, 26 November 1930, Page 13

Equal Sacrifice?

Sir,—At the annual meeting of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation to-day, the president, Hon. T. Shatter . Weston, strongly advocated a reduction in wages. The whole address was in the nature of a reply to the recent deputation of trade union officials,to the Acting-Prime Minister. The Hon. T. S. Weston said to-day: “While strongly advocating wage reductions, he wished to make it clear that he was not in favour of reducing the standard of living of the workers.” May I state that. the very process of reducing wages lowers at once the standard of hying. It is impossible to lower one without immediately interfering 'with the other. Further, he said: ‘Labour failed to recognise that Capital* had already made heavy sacrifices.” I• do not think the more intelligent workers will dispute that Capital has made sacrifices; but to reverse the position, has not Labour—and by Labour I mean the majority of the working men—made, and is still making, sacrifices? Only recently a well-known New Zealand trading and export firmemploying hundreds—published a bal-ance-sheet of the year’s trading up to June, 1930, and it discloses over a quarter million sterling profit; a carry-over, sum of a like amount, and a dividend of 10-per cent. I cannot see a deal of sacrifice herein, when you consider that the employees, are still on the same wage, which is now being weakened by increased cost of travel, food, etc.,'also the levy for the unemployed. Lower down in his address Mr. Weston asserted: “There is no higher standard of money wages in the. world than that 'of New Zealand.” The correctness of this is refuted quite easily when one knows the minimum wage ruling for skilled workers in Australia, South Africa, and even America. I must give Mr. Weston credit, however, for one great fundamental truth, i.e., “This federation has realised the advantage of workers being well paid and contented.’! It is often said that it is wholly fallacious for Labour to argue that primary producers can be helped by maintaining wages. It is not fallacious, but a simple fact, well known, that the employers stand to gain in every way; their production is not only maintained, but increased, through the maintenance of good wages and contented omployees. In furtherance of his plea for a reduction, Mr. Weston informs us: “Money spent on amusements, luxuries, and articles not actually required to keep you in good health and efficiency, or to assist in the production of other articles, is wasted.” Well, well! But let us read on where he says: “If that money was spent, for example, on improvements for farms or factories,. or maintaining men while working on experiments. . . .” May I ask this question: “Say we cut out all cheap rail trips, the pictures, smoking, etc., and half of our other dissipations, what is going to happen to the men and women employed in those undertakings?” There is an old saw: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” He tells us also: “That France owes her present prosperity to the miserliness or saving of its people.” I rather think there is more than personal’ miserliness behind the policy of the French people. “He that is forewarned is forearmed” applies to this particular nation—Germany of 1840 and 1914 is the same in 1930-—and France knows it.too well., In another part of the address we read: “The fall in prices for produce has been so severe that after rates and taxes, wages, repairs, and maintenance, for wages of supervision, nothing is left.” May I inquire if the severe , fall in the price of exports has anything to do with ..the wages of the men employed , thereat? What connection, if any, is there between the wholesale agents in London or Glasgow, aid the fluctuating market, and the man in New Zealand making those products? Costs of production naturally must be trimmed to meet the slump and competition, and the management are concerned rightly. But there are many factors determining the cost of production that need vigorous attention before the wages of the employees, which should be the very last-thing to interfere with'.'The Labour chiefs are not all Solomons — neither, are they all fools—and further, they are not all “bolshies,” and equally true the employers are not all bloated capitalists and enemies to the workingman. As a closure: The average working man can be trusted to help his country equally with those more fortunately situated. But he wants tangible proof that it is not to be a one-sided sacrifice — he is open to reason, but not intimidation. I am, etc., ' ' ■ IPSO FACTO. ' Wellington, November 19.