THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

Evening Star, Issue 20254, 15 August 1929, Page 15

THE LABOUR MOVEMENT

[By J.8.5.l 'ontrib’ition-- on matter* with reh • lh* Labou* Movement are Invited THE BASIC WAGE. LABOUR’S CASE BEFORI GOVERNMENT. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY SOUGHT. The subject of the basic wage is Labour’s special concern at the present tune, and as a culmination to a long series of exhaustive discussions and ardent silting ot statistics a representative , deputation from the whole of New Zealand’s trade unions met the Prime Minister in Wellington last week. Relegates attended from all centres, and altogether 65,000 organised workers were represented. The Alliance of Labour was the special force behind all prior negotiations, and its decision to recommend a commission of inquiry, without unduly pressing for an immediate raising of the basic standards of living, indicated a desire to deal with the situation fairly. The Prime Minister promised _ to recommend to Cabinet the appointment of a commission of inquiry. It is the hope of the general body of trade unionists that a raising of standards will be the ultimate result. The basic wage for New Zealand to-day is £4 Os Bd. Mr J. Robinson, secretary of the Otago Labour Council, was one of the delegates present hr Wellington, and was a member of the special committee of four set up to place before the Government the workers’ case. The writer appends the following interview he had with Mr Robinsom whoso statements may be taken as a true reflection of tlie opinions generally held by e leaders of the Labour movement. As the subject is of first importance, all available space is given to it: — “ For many years the trade union movement;” stated Mr Robinson, “ has expressed its dissatisfaction with the basic wage, and representations are continually being made for an increase in order that the wage-earner may be able to maintain bis dependents satisfactorily. Unfortunately all our efforts have proved fruitless, for today the average New Zealand worker is faced with a keener- struggle to maintain a reasonable standard of living than at any time in the history of New Zealand. Two factors have caused this —the increased cost oJ liv ing and the displacement of labour by the machine. With reference to the cost of living, the Court- of Arbitration maintains that the increase in the cost of living since 191-1 is 61 to 62 per cent., but we have never been able to ■scertain the basis on which the court has arrived at this figure. We understand the cost of living figures were based on household budgets supplied by sixty-nine families in New Zealand in 1911, but I must- point out that at that time there were 172,0*10 families in the dominion, of which sixty-nine families represent only .04 per cent. We have never been satisfied with this basis, and as far hack as 1925 wo approached the Government and asked that a commission be appointed to in mi ire into the cost of living in order that som? definite basis, shook! he laid down in fi v uig the basic wage. Unforthe advice of Mr JusU'-e Fraser that the commission would he inclFe"t've was taken, tlie judge stnt iim that it would bo impossible to can 1 ' out anv recommendations the fommis sion might’ make This was deemed unsatisfactory, and led ns to believe that the .commission would probably vary greatlv hi its findings to those made bv t’ - " * •■’-■r->-ation Court. ”'th the present Government u> mver the T -a'm"r movement is of minion that'at 'east an opportunity 'Sr investigation into the following important questions should be allowed V) The commodity rcmiirements of a family; (21 the nriees of these cotmnn d’ties; (31 the wage necessary to nnr rhasp these sary to deni with at least one im'mrtnnt phase of the cost of living, and that is the number of children to each throicdioiit the dominion fn his reply to the representations made to the Government in 1925 Air Justice Frazer stated that the court made it clear in its pronouncement of May 8, 1922. that it allowed two children under fourteen years of age to the average family. He further added that the figures for the census of 1921 worked out at 1 57 chihlren under fourteen years of age to each married man. At that tune the representatives of the Labour movement stated that the average number cf children to each family of the wage-earner class was three, and that the basic,tinge should he fixed accordingly. The judge of the Arbitration Court held, however, that the number of children to cnHi male in New Zealand was 0.99, and by this method of calculation he was able to prove that there were 136,013 nonexistent- wives and 732,540. non-existent children under fourteen years, or 686,764 non-existent children under sixteen years.

“Now, how did tho judge arrive at this conclusion? Ho first took tho total number of the male population, married and single, and supplied each male with a statistical wife. He then deducted from that the number of married women, and the remainder, lie discovered, ' were non-existent wives. Fo find the number of statistical nonexistent children lie multiplied the number of adult males, single and married, by three, and gave to each male, old and young, three dependent chilIren under,sixteen rears. _ Ho then deducted tho number of children shown by the census returns from the total, and found that there were 680,764 nonexistent children under sixteen, and 713,540 non-existent children under

fourteen lic a. i- ■• - ’•■ L . -, entire m...e i • oilat i- niimg Lauinet Munster*. member* j 1 Pariiameiit, judges of the 'Supreme Court,; ministers 6f religion lawyers, doctors, professional men. etc----wcre nil wageworkers whose pay was fixed by the Court of Arbitration. In short', the Arbitration Court judge on that occasion became a statistical match-maker in order to prove that the workers pi New Zealand were paid. a fair living wage. ,' : ■ '

“ We contend that if un investigation were made it .would be found that the wage-earning class have to maintain larger families than any other section of the community. However, in lour.representations of last week to tho 1. rime Minister wo made our case put on the accepted basis oi a anau ■■ and wife ana two children. Prior to the conference, said Mr Robinson, ”‘we went -fully into government data concerning the increase in the cost of living since a report having been published on Dn subject covering the yam's between !?91 and 1914. Wo find that the increase in the cost of living irom Uc.camber, IS9I, to December, 1914, was J 9.4 per cent. As far as can be asccr tained the increase in wages for the same period was between _IO and lper cent. In some industries the increase in wages was greater, while m others it was less.

“Towards the end of 1911; and the beginning of 1912 the larger industrial organisations—miners, seamen, watersid’ers, and freezing workers—obtained industrial agreements, -based to some extent on tho increase in the cost of living up to 1911. These agreements expired in 1913, and, duo to the industrial upheaval of that year, they were renewed with the free labourers without any increase in the basic wage. Ihe cost of living for the three food groups and house rent increased Iron December, 1911, to December, 1914, by 11.4 oer cent., but when awards .were mad" In 1915 mid 1916,, the'.wages were based on the increase in the cost of livin; from 1914 ‘only. Therefore, the increase from 1911 to 1914—11.4 percent. —lias never been made up in wages tc the great majority of workers. “ Wo have tried from time to tmr to obtain some information as .to thr amount allowed by the court for iuc uid light, clothing, house, rent, am niscellaneous expenditure, but have \ad no artisfactory answer. We should •now the method of computation ”, I opted- The only information obainable is that the increase in the ■nst of living since 1914 is approximately 02 per cent., and that t!’” court xos ’t-V basic wage according to t l ”' so in prices. ■“ In its annual report in 1.914 the .abour Department published a diavam allocating tho expenditure of tin .orkers weekly wage as follows: — ood, 34.13 per cent.; clothing, 13.89, ,iel and light. 5.22; rent. 2U.31 • otlic :ems. 26.45. As far as the Labour lovement is aware, tlie Court of Arbi . -ation allocates tho weekly wage ex ■enditure on the foregoing basis up tc ae present time. On the present bns- . age the amount for expenditure in aeli group would be as follows;~Foo•nd fuel. £1 Ms 43d per week; clothno, 11s -lid; miscellaneous. £1 Is fl-’.-d •eht, 10s I'd; totalling £4_ Os 8d W ! Mivone suggest, that sufiieient food, uel, and light can be obtabmd For fa” •eople for seven days for £1 11s 4-3d 1 o put it another way. the court a ws Is ltd per day to provide food aol, and light to each person. It 1 mdorstood that at tho present timet 1 ” onrt allows 7s 8d per week For fim md light. If 7s 8d is drdmtrtl Fro 1 M 11s 4?d t r, e remainder is only p ‘a SJd; tliero f orc, the worker’s wife :>!d that she can provide suflcic”' •iod for four people every day for lO”'' ••ieh. We have tak m a dietary seal rpparod ■by Dr T. Dawkins. of New mth Wales, for the cost of livin'011111115x1011 for that State, and nd"oteic average prices ruling in th.e for• min centres of New Zeahmd. Den 1 ng in sheer necessaries we find t !i -- -ost of food for four people wiUaniomr: to £1 ISsll id For clothing t ! n> court allows 11s 4MI per week, or £29 11s Od oer year. The Labour movement has ’ado a very complete invest i"«tion a* to the cost*of clothing for a working ■lass family of four peonlo. and we think onr figures low. At the .deputation we submitted very detailed lists of absolute requirements, the total cost For a man b°ing £2l 7s lid. and For a woman £lB 16s lid. In respect to the clothing of children we find from the returns which we have received it takes at the very lowest £' 'Os for each child To compare unrtoi" ’gurcs and work them out on a week]” I'-’sis we 6ml that £1 Is 3d per we”' is required for chith'im. as a ,r a;nst t' "s L’.d per we°k allowed ky the court n.yi miscellaneous expenses wore kept 'nw in onr computations, yet £1 Is 9 1 's t l '” 'owesf figure we can a'-me at/

“ Sixteen shillings ami one "penny haIF-n n nny p’r we 0 ’: is a 1 lowed for rent bv the court Mr Just ire Frazer stated in Ills rcnlv to LaVur reiir"sentations to file Oovernment in IfM that lions? r''nt had inoveasocl since 1014 only liy "!) oer cent. The weekly rental hi ‘PI-f must therefore have lieen only LOs or 11s. hut tins is manifestly wrong. Whni concerns ns at present is the honsiti" costs ns they exist to-day. In '.Vclline-ton. m partienlar. the weekly rental for an average four or 11 veromner! dwelling is G2s at the lowest. Labour is of the opinion that the best guide to hasp rentals on is the replacement or building costs of workers’ homes The rost of erecting a home m an' of the main centres is about £1 non The rest of the section will be at Imiv G2on, oinking a total post ol £1.200 Most of the expenditure incurred is h), , '”"'d by tin' A dvr”'cos Department, and I understand that at least Gd, per cent, is charged on money loaned to pay inierest and sinking fond. That amounts fn £7O per annum. Rates anti insurance would amount to at least £P Thus we have a weekly rental of £1 12s lid without anything being allowed for repairs or renewals. Some thousands' of workers have built bomes under the State Ad vaneas, and on examination The rents are found on an average to range from £1 7s Gd upwards. Hoiyever, Labour is prewired to ■ accept. 2ns as the rent in estimating its basic wage. The, followin'* is n list of weekly ex pen ditnre we allowed for:- Food. £1 18s Tlld; clothing. £1 Is Jkl : miscellaneous, £1 Is Oil: rent. £1 s> : light and fuel. 7s 8d ; total. Go 14s 7td. “ Tt would he an easv matter to add to the Forecoinp considerably. Take the amount tlm worker sbonkl save annuallv nnt it down at 4s per week, or £lO 0s Rd nor voar. This small amount is necessary to provide for the ramiirenieiits of the family'during periods of nnpmnloyment. sickness, accidents, and old age. Then there is the further nuestion of higher education for children Labour claims every worker should be able to educate bis children I to a hi"b standard and this would cost I at least 2s ncr week. Thus a total wage j of £G 0 s 7'd nev week -would kc rc- ! united to maintain a working class I family r n ascnabl*-. W n have allowed no ovnonf "o c or a holiday. to vhiab oyery man should be All ti(TliroQ wpro when cn'hru'tt'V'l ■■ o tt ■ o rim" aa,-i -f rha TV , is 'ltßa arran-vO rf v.-fh fhaia 'ha nrO T 'or r a- ■ 'a a-’ant IS • unjoin V>i*t fmr' is ,c fo Pf*’ iurrli«f tvnmt* , 01 ' 1 ' OWIPJT to f Nr nprvvl? nnpn ir,l nvr / nnlv «i aw *S ''yirr InhoiU’ ' these workers are either but partially

'lit oi. the in-i-ioai Mil,, iieaji The Government ;ml local odies are asked to . provide work for ..-these men or to render '•hantahle aid. Have tho industry and those who introduced the machinery no responsibility ro maintain their unemployed? The worst feature of our ■present system is that the workers are taxed to provide relief for other workers, while the industry that introduces the machine which displaces human labour escapes - paying its due share. What is the remedy? -’There is not an unbiassed authority anywhere who will not say that a higher rate of pay and a shorter working week are the only common-sense remedies. Firstly, this will absorb the labour displaced by the machine, amd. secondly, it will ensure a market- for commodities when produced At present we adopt a policy •if ensuring a market.bj? providing relief works and charitable aid, but we nay a big interest bill on onr borrowed "an’tal to employ men—-usually on unproductive relief work-!. No doubt it will continue to be arg.md tb°t if goods ami produced cheaper ’t will'■ of”’ J up other avenues of employment. While this may. have been the case in the early stages of the development of the machine in industrial not so to-day. The development in industrial production is too far advanced to find employment for men displaced by the machine. As an instance, _ reliable statistics published in the United States show that, while the agricultural output of that country increases by 10 per cent., the farming population declined from 1920 to 1926 by 3,700,000, and about 1,400.000 of that number were thrown into cit ylife to seek industrial employment ,At the same tune industrial production increased from io|9 to 192* by 26 per cent.; yet there were 11 per cent, fewer workers engaged. What applies to the United States apn'tes to New Zealand on a smaller "”ale. for, while our main industry—primary production—has increased by ’bout 11 per emit. in the last ten years, tewer workers are employed in that ’’idustrv.’’