BOOTS AND SHOES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 50, 27 August 1930, Page 10

BOOTS AND SHOES

[TRADE DISPUTES

INCREASED WAGES SOUGHT

CASE BEFORE COURT

The Dominion boot trades industrial dispute came before the Court o£ Arbitration for hearing to-day.

The parties were represented as follows: Employees, Messrs. C. A. Watts (Auckland), J. Moore (Wellington), li\ M. Kobson (Cfiristchurch), I\ Jones (Dunedin); employers, Messrs. T. O. Bishop, W. M'Kinley (Dunedin), H. R. Best (Christchurch), H. Olark (Auckland).

His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer remarked that he was pleased to see that a greater part of the award had been agreed to.

In regard to wages, Mr. Watts, in placing before the Court the employees' claims, said that the operatives felt that the time had arrived when the minimum rate should be raised to that of the other trades. "More especially is this necessary, in view of the fact that we have agreed to accept the piece-work system as safeguarded, but whereas the recommendations of the Footwear Committee provide for an increase of 10 per cent, above the minimum rates, as against the 25 per cent, of the English boot operative, we feel that this Court should make the adjustment that will remove the anomaly," he y said. We suggest that the claim for the rate of 2s (id per hour is not unreasonable undcv the circumstances now prevailing. I refer to the fact of the result of the Footwear Investigation Committee's report, and the incidence of Customs taxation, and I venure to say that the New Zealand boot manufacturer is to-day in a most favourable position to compete with overseas producers, and we ask that the operative should share in the good things now offering. Some employers are already paying higher wages, and in 'one instance, the employer, after consulting with me, agreed to base his piece-work prices on the £5 per week wage, and to-day, his is one of the busy factories, and he is putting into practice the recommendations of the Footwear Committee. We suggest that the present rate of 2s 0%6. per hour is alogether too low, and when the matter of intermittent employment is taken into consideration (greater in this industry than in any other in the Dominion), the fact that the English minimum rate is 7s 6d per week more than that stated by Mr. Anott and Mr. Spidy, viz., £3 per week, and the English piece-work rates ensure that the operative must earn 25 per cent, (as against our 10 per cent.) above this minimum, really means that the English operative on piece-work has a minimum rate of £3 10s, as against the present New Zealand minimum, of £4 8a lid, a difference of only 18s lid. When the Court considers the effect1 of the change in Customs tariff, which I have tabulated, and which discloses the fact that the protection afforded the New Zealand boot manufacturer is nearly 45 per cent, to-day, instead of the 35 per cent, of 12 months ago, and also that in the, three years, 1929, 1927,- and. 1928, the difference between the value of the product and wages and materials used was £178,931, £188,837, and £198,044, we / submit that even a 10 per cent, increase in wages will still leave the manufacturer in a most favourable position, and such a course would be in line with that of the progressive manufacturers who base their piece-work rates on a minimum, of £5 per week. Here is where that danger of piece-work lies, in the fact tbat the rates might be based on too low a minimum, and we fear that aspect of the position, as it can be shown that the rates are more easily cut than they are increased. We feel that we are now entitled to the same rate as the Australian operative, who is also under a 45 per cent, protective tariff, and j he is paid to-day only £5 2s 6d per week I of 44 hours, which will be reduced, on account of the statistician's figures, to £4 18s Gd, as from 15th September, 1930. In regard to females' wages, the union sought a weekly wage and weekly employment instead of the hourly rate. It was submitted that the rate at present paid of £2 10s (computed by the hour) was altogether too low, and as compared with the English and Australian workers, was inadequate. THE EMPLOYERS' SIDE. In putting forward the employers' viewpoint in regard to wages, Mr. Bishop said that the employers were asking, for a renewal of the award. "In reference to wages, I would ask the Court to consider the general economic' position of New Zealand, and also the circumstances of the boot trade," he said. "The general economic position of the country is a matter of common knowledge, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to call evidence or to quote- from statistics in support of that statement. The price of commodities has fallen throughout the world and those commodities which New Zealand exports have been particularly affected. The income from exports for the 1929-30 year was something like eight millions less than, for the previous year. In addition to the fall in prices of our exports there has been a general decline of prices of imports and the New Zealand manufacturer is therefore affected in two ways. . He suffers from the generally reduced purchasing power of his customers, and he suffers also from the lowered prices at which he has to sell in order to meet his foreign competition. It is unnecessary to say to this Court that the general economic situation of New Zealand to-day, if continued for another year, will make it impossible to maintain any longer the disparity between the wages in sheltered, and the wages in unsheltered industries. Any attempt to maintain wages on an artificial basis must result in increased unemployment. The manufacture of boots and shoes in New Zealand is an industry which has some slight protection from tariff, but which is very far from being a sheltered industry. The protection given is quite insufficient against the production of footwear in Great Britain, where wages are low and efficiency, is higher than we can attain under our differing conditions. Some indication of the state of trade is afforded by the figures as to, imports and local production for the last three years:— Imports'.—l92B, 261,456 pairs, £1,049,408 value; 1929, 267,768 pairs. £1,066,939 value; six months to 30th June, 1929, 102,134 pairs, £442,613 value; 30th June, 1930, 117,817 pairs, £497,852 value. Production.—-1926-27, total value £1,----168,314; 1927-28, total value £1,168,737; 1928-29, total value, £1,144,869. "These show an entirely unsatisfactory state of trade. Importations have increased. There has been a general decline of prices of imported lines which has to be met by local manufacturers. The general public demand to-day is for low-priced shoes wliicli constitute the lines in which it is hardest to compete, and the financial position of retailers generally is causing anxiety to manufacturers. It is sometimes stated that local manufacturers must be benefiting substantially to-day from the rate of exchange, but that is not generally true of the boot Trade, because many of the big exporting houses in England are paying the exchange. I would ask the Court to consider the wages question in the light of the general economic situation, and also with due regard to the condition prevailing throughout the industry. Other aspects of the industry before the Court for consideration are finishing, piecework, holiday pay, employment of boys, a female award, and casual hands. Under the female section, the employers ask for no alterations in the award.