Evening Post. THURSDAY. JUNE 7, 1900.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 134, 7 June 1906, Page 4

Evening Post. THURSDAY. JUNE 7, 1900.

THE MINIMUM WAGE. Tho controversy between masters and men in the building trade which opened in our columns on the 26th ult. showed both parties to be- in agreement upon ono pomt—viz., that ten and twenty years ago the general conditions ruling in the trade were better than now; but with regard to tho causes of thechange and almost every other point tho contending champions were hopelessly at variance. The employers blame the labour laws and tho trade unions; the men with equal confidence blame the incompetence, and greed of the employers; and who is to decide between them ? The task is a difficult ono indeed, for it can hardly bo' discharged satisfactorily by anybody who does not enjoy a special familiarity with the inner workings of tho trade, yet a man who possesses that qualification is almost inevitably disqualified from impartiality by the fact that his knowledge 'has been gained by his lot having been cast with one or other of the parties to the quarrel. To the outsider it is as obvious in this as in most oJher controversies tliat neither party possesses a monopoly of tho truth. The. employers are surely weakening their case when they suggest that in comparison with tho natural development of the city, and the artificial expansion of its present land boom, tho Arbitration Court and tho labour unions have had any appreciable effect in increasing rents; nor can the representatives of labour be any nearer the mark when they ask us to believe that it is only the ignorance of builders who have never learnt their business that prevents the Arbitration Act from working with clockwork regularity for the benefit of everybody. Neither side is altogether free from the exaggeration which a keen controversy almost invariably excites. The keynote of tho discussion was set by tho opening sentence of the proposition which it was tho aim of our series of articles to elucidate —namely: "Since trade-union labour is not classified and an employer cannot discriminate in favour of tho best workmen, the standard of value is set by the least competent." It was expressly conceded by some of tho builders interviewed by us and not denied by any of them that tho minimum wage fixed by the Arbitration Court (Is 4d per hour) is not excessivo for a good workman. Mr. L. S. Humphries, tho Secretary of the Builders and Contractors' Association, for instance, referred to tho matter as follows:—'"Tho present rate of pay is not too high tor a tradesman who worked honestly during tho eight hours. In fact, it waa only a fair wage for Wellington. But half the carpenters of Wellington uro not worth tho present minimum wage." It was also stated by the so.me authority that "fully one-half tho men tried by his firm wore not tradesmen, nor .had they any ambition beyond gotting through tho day's work and drawing thoir wages." "The good men," said another builder, "haa no incentive to excel thoir follows. If the employers wero permitted to mark oiit good men by giving them good pay, ihoro would bo a great diffcrenco effected. But tho present minimum rate was too high to enable omployors to adopt the differentiating system." The reply of Messrs W. H. Hampton and J H. Lightfoot, two of the officers of the Amalgamated Union of Carpenters and Johiom, to the strictures of the employers was in tho first placo that tho builders aro malting more money und getting bettor work done thnn before tho Arbitration Act was in operation, and that tho trouble was chiefly due to builders who did not know their .business ; and, secondly, that the free and easy methods of getting abound the minimum wage provision which aro permitted by the clause in the Sydney award by means of "improvers" and special coniracts are tantamount to dispensing with the protection of tho Act altogether. Undoubtedly the absolute freedom of selection and assessment for which tho employers rero asking is incompatible witii the statutory regulation, with which wo do not think it would be to the xiltimato inteiesb of either party to dispense altogether, yet it seems to ub that it should be within the power of the unions to check a tendency which, 'whether its actual manifestations aro really a« bad as they uro represented to •bo by the employers or not, is certainly 2ja .the^wronjg^djrection. Tho unione _arej

wise to stick to every safeguard for the interests of their weakest members, but the price is a heavy one which restrains or discourages the strongest If they were themselves to make a fair appraisement of the value of their various members' work, to classify it from within, as it were, upon its merits, the difficulty might be removed. The employers could then differentiate, but only according to a scale previously fixed by the men ; and the result would then be that the best man would have the same inducement to do his best as under a system of free competition, while the least efficient would -get no more than his fair value, and the minimum could be fixed accordingly without the fear that it would bo made the standard for abler workmen. It would surety bo in the interests of the men as much as of tho inasteis to devise some mode of varying the' rigid uniformity of the present system.