BASIC WAGE

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 24, 29 January 1924, Page 2

BASIC WAGE

MR- J. READ'S REPLY TO MR. . HAMMOND.

Mr J. Read, president of the Trades and Labour Council, replies to the statement of Mr. B. L. Hammond, assistant secretary, N ew Zealand Employers' Federation, which appeared in "The Post" ot^ Saturday, a« follows: "From the tone of Mr. Hammond's reP{y to my statement in connection with the low minimum basic wage now operating, one who did not know might easily conclude that the people who pay the minimum wage are confined to certain industries, where economic conditions are su£h as to require that -the lowest possible wage should be paid in order to.keep the industry alive. That tins is not the case is proven by the tact that in all industries and occupations we find a number of employers who will ne-ser under normal conditions, give more than the minimum wage. By reason of this fact, this section becomes a nightmare to the workers, as it exerts an enormous pressure on other employers— first by undercutting on wages, which may result in undercutting on- pricescompelling the decent employer who preters to pay a fair wage, to come to the lowest point he can. This in effect results in making 'the Devil' the pacemaker' (the Devil in this case being the bad employer). "The attitude taken by. Sir. Hammond in respect to the minimum wage is one with winch every fair-minded person will disagree. The Arbitration Act makes special provision for workers who are not able-to do an average day's work, and such workers can be arranged for by means of the underrate permit Our contention is that the Court's minimum (bssic) wage should be a real living wage, which "it is not at the present time, An American .friend of mine, in discussing the/matter of the effect of wages on production, put the point teree- /, f n he said fchat 'tlle horse which gels the oats is the horse which shows the. pep,' thus expressing a great ecpnr qmio truth m an epigrammatic manner. We still maintain that the Arbitration Court fails m its duty if it does not,give a_ living wage as its minimum, and then ttte employers can start' from that fair basis on their discrimination and differentiation. To take up any other attitude is equivalent to saying that a wage shall be paid which will not permit of a man paying his way, and thus throwing "him into the posjtion of supplementing his income by way of the Charitable Aid Boam or some other manner, which no average worker ought to be forced into the position of doing. Sir. Hammond's contention that we cannot have a high minimum is hardly borne out these days, when nearly every industrial, concern in the Dominion is showing handsome returns, and can easily • afford to pay' a, decent minimum, considerably above tha measly £5 16s Id now awarded by the Court, and then leave ample room for the differentiation mentioned by Mr. Hammond." ! ■■■".■"■