TESTING THE COURT

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 124, 30 May 1927, Page 5

TESTING THE COURT

FARMERS—AND ARBITRATION

PROFESSOR MURPHY'S REVIEW

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—No doubt many of our farmers are. congratulating themselves on the strength of Professor Murphy's review of the working of the Arbitration Act, and consider both the Act and Court as good as scotched, and only await a meeting of I arlmment to be sent to the pack: Personally, I take strong exception to the review. In the first place it is a academic review, but it is only academic it is not practical, and for that reason is not helpful. The average worker would see m it a direct attack on his wages, an attempt to make his present bad position worse, thereby lessening his interest in ftis work, destroying his hope in constructive action, and driving him into the armsot the revolutionaries. Professor Jlurnhv says:— ■ However, a difficulty arose when the . wages fixed on the staMard of living basis proved greater than the value of the services rendered by the worker, either because the work was inefficient or more usually because prices had fallen, and the industry could not stand the wage. The argument used here is rather difficult to follow. How does Professor Murphy arrive at the fact that the wage paid was f f? $? n th? value o£ the ser™e rendered? Where is the standard by which such a- fact can be measured? Such a statement should not be made unless there is absolute proof of its truth. Now, with regard to prices, any observant person can tell you that prices rose long before wages, and wages lagged far behind in tfceir effort to keep up with prices, so that m equity, quite a large sum is due to the worker since 1914 in that respect. Again, when produce .prices were at their peak level, did the producers make an eftort to share the increase with the 'workers.' No, T they only ask them to share the losses. Under the circumstances, they have a right, to take the bad with the good, and^ke their physic like men. If they won t share tho gains, they should bear the loss. «r£ urther on» Professor Murphy saline system seemed'to promote inefficiency. Where is the proof of this, and what is the standard by which efficiency is judged? By.what right is the question of efficiency brought, in to this argument? We are dealing here with the minimum wage, a minimum wage for the minimum amount ot work. Since you *are merely paying for the minimum amount of work—and getting it, what cause have you for complaint? lou are getting what; you are paying for, what right have you to expect more? If you we looking.for "something for nothing, the workers will give you just as much of this as you give them." When you pay tor efficiency you may expect to get it. . ; Professor Murphy gays: "The system also brought the parties, together in an atmosphere of contention^' This must necessarily be true of any system that may be employed under existing circumstances, where the workers find their purchasing power diminishing, owing to rising prices, and it is not fair to blame the "Act"' or the "Court" for.the necessity which causes them to function; the same element of contention would prevail under any other system. The brightest note struck by Professor Murphy is that contained in the statement ■ v Wages should be based on what a man produced, and not on what he consumed. The cost-of-living basis of wage was, in the speaker's judgment, economically unsound. The latter statement is certainly anomalous. Would it be economically sound to expect that a worker could perform his duties even in the most perfunctory manner on a given wage on money basis, irrespective of the cost of living, or its purchasing power? Is it not possible that the cost of living may rise so considerably that it would be impossible for the worker to function on it. What would >o the position of the worker to-day if te had to live on a pre-war wage? Would Professor Murphy consider that as being economically sound? Is it not a scientific fact that an epgine requiring a ton of coal a week in order to give the'required; motivo power requires that ton ot coal quite irrespective of tho price of the coal! Is the worker of any material point any different in that respect from the engine? , That "wages should be based on what a man produces" is just what labour has long contended. Now, will Professor Murphy or the, farmers say just what proportion of what a man produces should le his by right as the wage of production, f once we could get that basis satisfactorily settled, the main difficulty in regard to the wage question would be settled for all time. For instance, a farmer. provides the land and the seed, and the worker produces a crop of potatoes ready or market. What is the worker's share? What proportion of the crop jb he equitably entitled to? The question of fluctuation.* of market prices in unprotected industries is not tairly stated. The current price is quoted, compared with wages, which have not differed greatly over a course of years, and the most made of the matter in the fanners' favour, But is such a mode of reasoning fair to tho worker? Take the decade average of the prices the farmer has received, and compare these with the wages received by the worker during the samo period, and it will be found that wages are far short of what they should <c in equity to the worker. It is iuch line of argument th->.t anger the worker and drives him into the ranks of the revolutionaries. ■ , Price levels are quoted and compared as though the whole difference between them were due entirely to wages; nothing is suggested in regard to the profits of the employer or the profits on those other charges which the employer, has to meet, which in no way come into the wage question. For instance, the Bank of New Zealand pays a dividend of 15 per cent., and carries a huge sum forward to reservo fund/but the Stock Exchange says that roughly 6 per cent, would be a fair dividend for the bank to pay. Insurance, shipping, and possibly many other charges are more or lesß based on similar mes, but these are all carefully overlooked in the attempted attack on the workers' wages. The mentality shown in grasping the full of the problem on equitable lines is certainly lamentable, and we shall not make much progress in the matter until it is approached in a much broader spirit and with greater vision.

With regard to Professor Murphy's suggestion to fix wages in the first place by a commission consisting of the present Judge of the Arbitration Court, the Government Statistician, and an economist, is on' the lines of perpetuating one of the evils that have been dogging industry for ages past—e.g., the controlling of- industry by non-experts. We would not send our watch to the plumber for repairs, nor allow a blacksmith to diagnose a cancer case; but we are ever ready to pitchfork a non^expert-into a position that has to do with industry and commerce, without any realisation of the responsibility of the job, ignoring the fact that we are dealing with a matter that has to do with experts, and that requires experts to deal with it. *It is this method of dealing with such problems as these that has landed the nation where it is.—l am,-etc., W. MADDISON. 29th May.