OUTPUT AND WAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 117, 13 November 1926, Page 8

OUTPUT AND WAGES

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I am glad to see so much in your paper recently regarding the prosperity of. New Zealand, and the part each workfe'r has in creating the general prosperity of all. Many thoughtful men are considering ways and means of increasing the general prosperity. It is generally understood that the national income for our primary produce has declined considerably, ai.d is likely to decline more (probably to the level commensurate with the 1914 value in produce). If this eventuates what will happen in New Zealand? It is noticeable that almost every award for labour either gives a small advance in wages or better conditions, which increase the cost of production. It is well known that with the increase of wages or shorter hours, etc., the output does not increase, but rather decreases. When shall we reach the breaking point? Labour says the cost of living should decrease before a reduction of wage takes place. How can that happen if they make the cost of living higher with their increase of wage and a lesser output?. In my opinion there is only one solution to the difficulty, which can be illustrated by my personal experience. I had a factory' where the ordinary ruling wage was £4 10s per week (the same us. other factories were paying in the same line of business) in 1920. The men worked so slowly that the price of the articles had to be increased considerably, and trade slackened off, therefore I put the men on piecework and made the rate so that the' goods were costing 10 per cent, less for labour charge. The men immediately made £6 to £7 10s per week. This continued some time, until the slump of 1921 started and prices fell. I had to reduce the rate 10 per cent, again, and the men made the same amount of money—£6 to £7 10s per week. Then the slump came, and after closing down for a while (no business) the men came back at another 10 per cent, reduction, and for several years made £5 5s to £6 10s per week (the award rate being £4 15s per week). The only thing to watch was that they turned out good work. I found the men were contented, and never wished to havea change of employer, for, they, worked as they wished to. Thus a saving of slightly over 25 per cent, was made (for each' 10 per cent, reduction was made on the previous rate list), the goods were put on the market cheaper, and the men had greater purchasing power. The output increased nearly 50 per cent., therefore everyone who had anything to do with the products benefited. Now, sir, if all the workers in New Zealand, manual and brain, could bo induced to do the same, by giving more money for more work, payment by results, the cost of living would go down, and the men would . c on the way to independence. It is a fact that several awards prohibit piecework, but it can be maintained that such a clause is against the interests of the workers.

I have yet to meet the manual worker' who would not be willing to receive more money for extra work, therefore, if all workers fought against the union officials who are against piecework, or bonus payments, they would help to create better conditions, reduce the cost of living, and: avoid tlie industrial calamity which seemsso apparent in the near future.—l am, etc., CONCERNED. "; 13th November. ' •