WAGES OF LABOURERS

Evening Post, Volume XCIII, Issue 43, 19 February 1917, Page 2

WAGES OF LABOURERS

A CHRISTCHURCH AWARD

EVIDENCE OF WORKERS' WIVES,

t&X TELEGRAPH.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) CHRISTCHURCH, 17th February

The Arbitration Court has issued an award in the general labourers' case, which was before it last week. The case attracted considerable attention, because of the elaborate details placed before the Court by the union. The wives' of members went into the witness-box and gave details of their household expenditure and husbands' earnings, and information of the extent to which debts were contracted, the latter point being raised, with the purpose of showing the Court that the existing wage was insufficient to enable them to pay their way. .The union asked for a wage of Is 4-^d per hour for general labourers in lieu of the. Is 2d being paid. The amount awarded by the Court is as follows:—Tunnel men at rock tunnelling work or sinking shafts over 1.0 feet, Is 6d rier hour: tunnel men at clay tunnelling work, and men in charge of derricks or scaffolding, Is 3d per hour; all other classes of labour Is 2d an hour.

The award also provides that so long as the Empire remains at war, and for three months afterwards, the war bonus of 10 per cent..shall pc paid in addition to these rates, and further provides that the war bonus at any time during the currency of the award" may be continued wholly or partially, or may be increased or terminated as the Court may determine.

In a lengthy memorandum to the award, the Court says: "The only question submitted to the Court was as to the minimum rate of wages for general labourers. The chief argument used in support of the claim was the decreased purchasing power of the sovereign since 1913 as evidenced by the tables issued by the Government Statistician. It has, however, been repeatedly pointed out, both here and in Australia, that the purchasing power of tho sovereign as shown in such tables is not an accurate guide as to _ the actual rise or fall in the cost of living, especially in the case of a particular class of the community, the tables being based upon the supposed requirements of all classes. Speaking of similar tables prepared by,himself, the Australiaii Statistician says : 'Whenever abnormal conditions arise (for example through drought, war, or other extraordinary circumstances) which involve corresponding changes in the ordinary usages of a community, the assumption that the price indexes and cost of living move together proportionately is more or less invalidated. Obviously they cannot do so, because all sensible people change their regimen according to new conditions arising. . . It may also be noted that in abnormal times the changfe in the regimen compelled by the abnormal conditions will probably vary, even from one locality to another. Hence, at such times, although the price indexes show the variation in the value of money based upon the normal composite unit, they are not quite satisfactory for the purpose of. showing the measure of adjustment necessary on a reasonable basis to equate the value of wages or other payments with those of tho former period.'" .

. Tho memorandum proceeds: "It has also to.be remembered that'Hhe. increased cost of living "so far as it is caused by'the. war-is a burden which has to be borne by the whole community,' and that to relieve one class of its proper proportion of that burden, simply means adding that proportion to the burden already being borne by the other classes of the community. The lowest paid worker, however, is the least able to bear'such burden, and should be relieved to some extent if reasonably^ possible. Having regard' to theso considerations the majority of the Court are of opinion that they would not be justified in pei> manently increasing, the existing rate of wages for labourers, and that the most they can properly do is to n.dd to the wages payable under the award a war bonus of 10 per cent., and the award is made accordingly. Tt may be noted that in Sew-South Wales, where the cost of living is much higher than i»i IS Tew Zealand, two Judges after an exhaustive enquiry decided -in August last/ that the minimum wage should be Is; l|d per hour, or 9s 3d per day, or £2 15s 6d per week."

Mr. M'Cullough desired to record his dissent from this decision. He thinks that the addition of tho -war bonus does not satisfy tho reasonable demands of the worker, and that there should also have been an increase in the rate of the minimum wage.