The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1931. WHO IS TO BENEFIT?

Franklin Times, Volume XXI, Issue 68, 12 June 1931, Page 4

The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON

FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1931. WHO IS TO BENEFIT?

Office and Worfte:

ROULSTON STREET, PUKEKOHE. Phone No. 2. P.O. Box 14

'We nothing extenuate, nor augfc

set down in malice."

MANY employers are in the same predicament ;is (he Auckland Transport Board touching the decision of the Arbitration Court in favour of a ten per cent cut. The difficulty arises over the question of whether businesses which are enjoying reasonable prosperity at the present time should keep wages on their present level, or reduce them and pass on the benefit 1.0 the general public. There is a considerable body of opinion in Auckland winch is in favour of the cut upon the distinct understanding that the fares should be'reduced simultaneously. We have no right to offer opinions on the subject to a public body operating in another district, and in using the case of the Auckland Transport Board we do so merely because it presents an excellent example of the general question. In cases where the benefit of reduced overhead costs cannot be passed on to the consumer we think it would be unworthy to make any reduction unless some special reason exists. Further it seems to us that the reason excusing a reduction would have to be very cogent before it could be allowed to prevail, and at present no reason occurs to us which we should be disposed to accept. Obviously a business which, at the old rate of wages, is enjoying prosperity, is one that has not suffered from the depression, which is the only ground for making any reduction at all. Such a business, being, as we have supposed, of such a nature that the reduced wages cannot be passed on as reduced prices, lies outside the territory intended to be covered by the Court's decree. If all businesses had been equally fortunate no cut would have been consented

to or asked for. Hence, it is quite clear thai by employers of this Kind no reduction should be made. If this l'air and reasonable view is -not taken the employees will be encouraged in the opinion, already too easily come by that the case for reduction was »ot as urgent as the employers alleged.

The other case, the case of the Auckland Transport Board .and those ’ employers similarly situated, is more difficult. That case should he decided, we think, by the application, wherever possible, of the excellent rule of the greatest good to the greatest number. In the first place there will be no excuse for reducing wages if the only result is to increase profits which are already fair in the circumstances. Neither will there be any excuse if wages are reduced and the difference is wasted in slovenly or exextravagant methods of management. The men arc entitled to ask that the businesses in which they work all their time to the best of their ability should be managed with economy and efficiency. Unless this principle is recognised and consistently applied cordial relations between office and workroom, such as ought to prevail in all businesses, cannot be expected The question really is between the workers in a particular trade or business and the workers generally. Using the Auckland Tramways again as an example, the decision to be made —that is the only decision reasonable men will approve—is whether the cut is to he made and passed on or not made at all. If we, apply the rule of the greatest good to the greatest number, we shall approve of a reduction of wages and a reduction of fares operating simultaneously. Whilst the general body of workers are suffering a reduction it is proper that they should have the benefit of a reduction in the transport necessary to take them to their work. It is a fair assumption that the reductions which the rest suffer will give the tramwaymen cheaper living, and care must be taken that one section does not benefit at the expense of another. For this reason we think that the workers’ leaders will not be loyal to their own frequently expressed ideals of equality of sacrifices if they enter into contests, which will really be contests against each other, for exemptions in different trades. We do not suggest that a good case will not be, possible of demonstration in any trade, but we think it more likely than not that the Arbitration Court bas canvassed the possibilities very thoroughly—far too thoroughly lo allow much of a loophole where injustice of this nature may creep in. It is clear that any trade which gets an exemption from the general rule, and is thereby allowed lo draw the old rate of pay will be doing so largely, if not entirely, at the expense of their fellow workers. The equitable course in all cases, therefore, will be to make the reduction and pass on the"whole of it in every case, or almost every ease, where the business has been wmrking at a reasonable profit under the old conditions. And such exceptions as may be required should be allowed only on the ground that any other course would threaten the continued employment of the men engaged in the trade under review. If these principles are adopted benefit must accrue, with very little loss of time, both to the unemployed and to the general public.