THE BASIC WAGE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 81, 2 October 1929, Page 12

THE BASIC WAGE

STEONG CRITICISM

MR. MONTEITH'S ACTION

An interesting position arose dcring the course of the making of the new Dominion "Waterside "Workers' Award, culminating in the withdrawal from the other members of the Arbitration Court of Mr. A. L. Monteith, the workers' representative. In a dissenting opinion, Mr. Monteith states: — "Two questions arise in this case: (1) The basic wage; (2) the amount of lost time on waterfronts in New Zealand. In connection with the socalled basic wage, which is to-day £4 Os 8d for forty-four hour week, made up as follows: Food, 34 per cent., &X 7s 5Jd; clothing,-14 per cent., lls 3-ld; fuel and light, 5 per cent., 4s Old; rent, 20 per cent., 16s ljd; miscellaneous, 27 per cent., fi.l Is 9Jd, I am of opinion that for a man, wife, and two children the amounts allowed cannot reasonably meet the family needs. Take .rent, 16s lid per week. It takes a house' of four or five rooms to house such a family. I certainly do not think 16s l^d will cover such cost, and if another 9s or 10s per week is taken some other item must suffer, because we only have £.4 0s 8d in all. In Australia the basic wage is declared, and, in addition, skill and lost time are taken into consideration. Take the building labourers. They are allowed 20 per cent, over the basic wage for lost time, non-payment of holidays, etc. The idea is to ensure to them the basic weekly wage. But in New Zealand Is lOd per hour is the wage (full week forty-four hours, £4 0s 8d), and if the worker lost 20 per cent, the same as in Australia he would average &Z 4s 7d, and the abovementioned items of rent, clothing, food, etc., wouia be reduced'by 20 per cent. "A SO-CALLED BASIC WAGE." " "It is clear that we only have a socalled basic wage. The question of the average family may be raised. The Court has always accepted 'the average family' as >nan, wife, and two children. His; Honour Mr. Justice Frazer, in the pronouncement of Bth May, 1922, at page 350, in discussing the 'average family,' states: 'We in New Zealand have reckoned only two children to the average family, but this is over the mark.' On 30th July, 1925, a Labour deputation waited upon the Prime Minister asking for a Koyal Commission and suggesting that two children to the average family was insufficient allowance and three should be allowed. A report of such deputation was forwarded to the Court by the Prime Minister asking for its opinion, and in reply on 21st August,' 1925, referring to the number of children allowed to the average family, the Judge stated: 'The. Court made the matter perfectly clear in its pronouncement of Bth May, 1922, in which it said it allowed for two children under fourteen years of age to the average family, etc. Again the letter states.: 'We desire to point out that tho prevailing conception of the basis of wages lias altered of late years. lustead of a man being paid according to the current market value of his work, lie is paid not less than a wage that is rogarded as sufficient to maintain himself, a wife, and two children. Ho is regarded as a social unit rather than an economic unit. "When trade is prospering the worker can still obtain tho current market valuu of his work, but he must not in times of trado depression be paid less than a wage that is regarded for the time being us suflicient for the maintenance of himself, a wife, and two children, plus additional payment based on his skill and certain other factors.' Tho samo letter <;outains other references to tho man, wife, and two children base. Poisonally, I believe that, taking married wage-earners with families, tho average figure is about 2.40 per cent, children under sixteen years of ago per family. As life is a state of constant chango, we cannot treat a worker solely as an economic unit. As a free man he is entitled to sufficiont to roach the married state if he wishes, ho is entitled to a reasonable standard of living for his family, and when the family leave tho homo ho is entitled to make provision for declining years for his wife and himself. If theso aspects are not considered and provision made wo simply do not fit into tho scheme of life. _ I simply say that £4 0s Sd cannot in my opinion keep an average family of man, wife, and two children, which family is tho average family legislated for by this Court. QUESTION OP HOURS. "In connection with the second question, a return of men employed for thirty-four weeks and over in 'tho fifteen main ports of Now Zealand was put in by the employers, and they took 10 per cont. each from the top and the bottom aud the return showod an average week of 32.41 hours' employment per week. This actually excluded 34 per cent, of the most casual, and 10 per cent, of tho highest paid workers. If tho return wanted to show a fair average weekly employment we should have the 100 per cent, aud then take the same percentage from each end. It certainly appears loaded in favour of tho employers in its present form, and, as stated above, only shows 69 per cent, of the workers employed. Tho Court last timo took the figure of 35.64 on a roturn based on the four main ports only, oil, in my opinion, an unfairly loaded base. (Tho figures for all ports were not then available.) So we have a difference of approximately three and a half hours. Thirty-two hours at 2s 4d per hour, applying the principle of tho 'Higgins judgment, which both the majority and minority of the Court agreed to accept the last time this disputo was heard in this Court, gives an average wago of .£3l4s 8d per week, or 6s short of the basic rate. As clearly set out, I do not agree with the so-called basic* rate, because I do not believe it will give a fair standard of living. Tho rate awarded in this case will not oven givo &i 0s Ba, and even if the rato was made 2s 6d per hour, on a thirty-two hour week, a wage (on the Higgins principle) of £4 would result, Sd short of our so-called basic wage. Tho majority of the Court and I differ on tho average family, and the memorandum to the 1924 award. If the 25, per cent added in 1922 and the roturn that was secured at tho request of tho Court in 1924 was not for the purpose of measuring the loss of timo suffered by workers, what other purpose was it secured for? In my opinion it was secured to find out what hours did these men work and no other purpose. As this award covers all the waterfronts of New Zealand, I think no explanation necessary why I have taken the more comprehensive return, and with these figures it cannot be said that they show no change m conditions. This industry has to have a large number of men at call to meet fluctuation of shipping, and m pointing this fact out Mr. Justice Higgins said: 'Those who stand and wait equally serve.' I cannot see that it is sound to depart from the principle of measurement of lost time laid down by Mr. Justice Higgins; in fact, I am of opinion it is the only way casual rates can fairly be fixed. A MAJORITY AWARD. "As the majority of the Court refuse to adopt this principle, which it seems clear to mo was adopted in the 1924 case, and as I believe thu Higgins principle and the principle which measures lost timo is vital and involves .the whole waga itructure of waterside

agreements, and as I am strongly of opinion that nothing less than man wife, and two children should be the base, I have refrained from takine any part in the framing of this award. The award, therefore, is solely the decision of the other members of the Court. The majority of the Court have stated that I failed to place before theni any evidence of the Court adopting the basis of 'the average family of man, wife, and two children.' This I deny. They have the Bth May, 1909 pronouncement, which is clearness Itself, and the letter from Mr. Justice Prazer (on behalf of the Court) has also been placed before them. This letter reaffirms the pronouncement of

"I also feel compelled to refer to the new. practice of taking into consideration when fixing the ordinary rate special rates which have been awarded for dirty or very unpleasant work and using them as a reason why the ordinary rate should not be increased To adopt such a practice is to give' with one hand and attempt to snatch it away with the other. Cable and Co and Niven and Co. both do ship repair and overhaul work, and are in com petition with the Patent Slip Co., which is a party. They should, in my opinion be parties on the same basis as the Patent Slip Co. insofar as ship repair and overhaul work is concerned. "It is evident, therefore, that the waterside workers are entitled to an increase in wages, as a comparison of the figures presented by the employers and the federation in 1924 and in 1929 show. As the increase they are entitled to has been refused, I will not accept any responsibility for any untoward happening in this industry as a result of (in'my opinion) the inadequate wage allowed*'.'

The Court's memorandum appears on page 7.