TO RAISE WAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 148, 26 June 1933, Page 10

TO RAISE WAGES

] QUESTION OF COST

i CITY COUNCIL FINANCE

JAn old-time resident of the city, who as given well over thirty years to ta'ie study of municipal affairs, has.supplied "The Post" with the following Examination oft city finance and labour {costs. "I have bean much interested in'the ique'stion of wages for the city's employees, workmen and officers, now I being discussed by the candidates for municipal honours, and their supporters (ho states). It appears to ma that so far none has reached the right basis of discussion. What is the general state of the city's finances is the first thing to be informed on before wo can say what wages should or can be paid. When times were good, business flourishing, and revenues buoyant it was easier to pay good wages than it is now when trade is depressed. 'What is the city's income 1?' precedes the question of what shall it expend on wages or in any other direction. Councillor Butler has tabled a notice of motion to increase wages and salaries of £250 a year or less by 10 per cent., and wages and salaries from £251 to £500 by 5 per cent. I personally am in favour of these increases if the finance exists to give effect to what is proposed. I am also in favour of doing away with tho cuts which others are suffering from. The issue is: Can these things bo done now? I have investigated the matter, and find that the motion if carried would entail the following annual labour costs which the City Council would have to meet: — 10 per cent. 5 per cent. Increase on " Increase on £250 & Less £251 to £500 £ £ Town Clerk's and 3liscellancous '... 1037 • 474 City Treasurer's .... 393 240 City Solicitor's 42 77 City Engineer's 9267 ' 2405 Reserves, Baths, and „ \ Beaches 2067 130 Libraries 207. 54 13,103 3350 Tramways 18,203 70S Electricity »142 i__ »^>6 Milk 3019 _364 43,467 5368' Total £48,835 FUNDS NOT AVAILABLE. "Though the council's last balancesheet showed a credit of £24,000, the council has in the recently-adopted estimates planned for works to coyer nearly all its revenue on the .basis of tho present wages and salaries. If the £48,835 is to be spent on wages, where is the council to get that amount? If we take the tramway department, for instance, I find that there was a fall of £28,298 in revenue last year, and though the-total expenditure and charges were reduced by £25,390 the net debit balaneo was £12,591, as compared with £9683 in the preceding year. "With a decrease in revenue of £28,298 and a net debit balance of £12,591 on tram and bus operations for the year, it is beyond all reason tJ think of adding another £18,971 of labour costs to the expenditure of the department. It would probably mean a deficit of over £30,000 for a, full year. A raising of fares to meet the situation would not suit, as the falling revenue shows that people are disposed to use the trams less, and not more, at the present fares. I learn that the tramway men, to their credit, realise the true position and have faced the hard circumstances like sensible men. Their union entered into an agreement with the City Council on the basis of a 10 per cent, reduction in wages. Where the city's transport system is getting to financially is :> a most serious" problem, aud any trifling with its finances should meet with strong condemnation. RATES NOW TOO HEAVY. "With respect to the district account maintained from rates another £10,483 expenditure to raise wages may not seem a large call. Councillor Chapman has been explaining that at'most it would only moan a small increase in the rates. The fact,, however, has to be borne in. mind that many ratepayers are now finding the present rates too heavy to pay. in 1930 tho Outstanding rates were £ 10,000, and this last year these are up to £ 53,000. ' I heartily commend the Mayor's caution in respect to finance', it should have a-solid backing from the councillors. In conclusion, I wish to point out that raising wages at this time may result in fewer men being employed. With every .£IOO in hand you can pay twenty men £5. per week, or twenty-five £4 per week, but it is impossible out of ' £ 100 to pay twenty-five men £5 per week. That is a simple illustration, and I may be called to book for using it. Still, it tolls the truth all workers should remember that with a limited income the City Council can employ.a greater number at the lesser rate than it could at a higher. It is not a question of desire but one of means."