Evening Post. FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1927. BLAME AS A PROOF OF MERIT

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1927, Page 8

Evening Post. FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 1927. BLAME AS A PROOF OF MERIT

If the highest praise that can be bestowed on an award of an Industoal Court is the dissatisfaction of both sides, the new freezing workers award of the Arbitration Court w;Il almost certainly make good. „ Court's judgment' concedes neither of the 10 per cent, demands. Ihe downward 10 per cent, of the employers, equa ll y with the ward 10 per cen t. of the employees has not materialised; yet the freezing workers have received something—have received sufficient increases to place them, or at any rate the lower-paid ones, on the same standard as other similar labour. To allay any alarm on the farmers' part, Mr, Justice .Frazer shows what a small thing the increases are when expressed in terms of sheep; and the argument that seeks to soften the farmer's wrath will equally mitigate the enthusiasm of the workers. No doubt they will complain that they are not receiving much; but the Court will say that it is giving them a not inconsiderable advance within the principle of conformity to standard, and without fracture of any other principle. Summed up, the effect of the award, so far as time rates, are conctsned, is to give the lower-paid meri in the freezing industry the -penny per hour that was added by the Court to the basic wage in September, 1925; to the higher-paid men, something less than a penny—in some cases threefarthings,,, in others a half-penny. Slaughtering ratesHvill rise by Is 6d per hundred—being Is less than Auckland employers conceded —so as to place slaughtermen in the same ratio with time-workers as under last award. Mr. Justice Frazer calculates that the total increases of payment ordered will work jjut at about one-third of a penny per sheep, or eleven shillings a year in the case of the farm with an annual draft of 400 fats. So little a levy tha£ it may not pass on, and "will probably not affect the farmer at all."

His Honour's argument works down to this: Is the lower-paid freezing worker entitled to the standard paid that class of labour? Can it ha said that either the freezing industry or the farming industry cannot pay the difference between that standard and existing'" rates? And, if compliance with the standard is not beyond economic capacity, why not? Any proof of economic incapacity must be general in character. The economic test is not supplied, by the highest-mortgaged farm nor by the most inflated freezing capitalisation. If the over-capitalisation of some freezing companies were admitted as a reason for keeping the pay of all freezing workers below the general standard, then no doubt the employers could supply the- required "evidence. But does die consequence of over-capitalisation' fall properly upon pay-rates? Are mistaken inVestments redeemable in any measure out of the remuneration of menwho complain that already they suffer from the over-supply of freezing, equipment, . through an excess of. broken time? Mr. Justice Frazer's I answer to these questions •is that over-capitalisation is not a reason for reducing the wage standard of workers unless that standard is "unduly high" in relation to'the general standard—instead of, as in the present case, being somewhat lower— and that the adjustment of such difficulties as over-capitalisation should be left to the operation of economic forces. Discarding the over-capital-isation phase and looking at the general position, Mr. JusticS Frazer finds that the lot of the farmer is less satisfactory than in 1924 and 1925, but is considerably better than in 1922. While wage questions are not wholly answerable jn terms of the cost of living, that factor does bulk largely in the case of the lowerpaid employees, who will now receive the whole penny.

If an Industrial Court were to be guided in its wage-figures- by the temporarily limited paying-power of certain over-capitalised and-• overbuilt freezing companies, the tendency would be to confirm inflation. Possibly the retort • may be made that to maintain existing wage-stan-dards is equally to confirm inflation. But the inflation in the latter case is at least arguable; in the-former it is obvious. When a Court," as in this case, takes the line of least resistance, it is seldom so well armed with argument as Mr. Justice Frazer is on the present occasion. His award is a' compromise, but a com : promise reinforced with principle. And it must be remembered that the industry dealt with presents peculiar difficulties. It cannot always absorb new costs in more rapid production, for output must wait on quality. Hence the clearly asserted right of the employer "to regulate the killing-pace for individual slaughtermen^'