WAGE RISE CLAIM

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20624, 27 November 1941, Page 9

WAGE RISE CLAIM

EXTRA 7.8 PER CENT. HIGHER LIVING COSTS ARBITRATION HEARING (Per Preaa Association.) WELLINGTON, this day. For the second time since the war began an application under the rates of wages emergency regulations is being made to the Arbitration Court for an increase in pay to cover the increased cost of living. The application is by the New Zealand Engine Drivers, River Engineers, Marine Engine Drivers, Greasers, Firemen and Assistants’ Union. Judge Tyndall is presiding. With him are Messrs. W. C. Prime, employers’ representative, and Mr. A. L. Monteith, workers’ representative. Mr. A. McLagan, president of the Federation of Labour, is conducting the case for the applicants, and Mr. W. T. Mountjoy, secretary of the Wellington Employers’ Association, is acting for the New Zealand Employers’ Federation. Presenting the union’s case, Mr. McLagan said it would be shown that retail prices had been rising while, ’apart from the increase granted by the general order last year, wage rates had not increased. In other words, only one side of the policy of stahilisation arising from the economic stabilisation conference had been Reeled during the year.

Higher Prices Allowed

It was submitted that the LegislaTire, in approving the rates of wages emergency regulations, had recognised 'hat it was only just that wage earners ihould be protected against increases in the cost of living, and that such protection did not upset the economy of the Dominion. It was also submitted that the court, by its general order last year, also recognised the justice of the workers’ claims, and that the employers had actually gone further in such recognition since they themselves had asked for and obtained increases in the prices of commodities they sold on the ground that production or handling costs had increased. It would be shown that the general economic position was good and that company profits had not declined. Mr. McLagan quoted*' the official index figures to show that, in spite of the 5 per cent increase in wages last year, the relative position of the wage earners had been declining. It was submitted, therefore, that the general order last year had not’ restored the purchasing power of wages to the 1938 level, nor to the level of three or four years previous to the making of that order.

Price Index Criticised

Dealing with the method, of compiling • the . retail prices index, Mr,; McLagan argued that of the household budgets forming the basis of the statistics, an Undue' number came from families in the higher income' groups, and that the' index- was- not- applicable to the average wage earner. A substantial part of the average'household expenditure was not covered by the index and the workers considered that the retail price index was not the cost-of-living index. There were reasons to doubt the adequacy of the 1930 household budget collection on which it was fundamentally based, and the results of that collection were almost certainly out of date. The war had further upset the accuracy of the index. Many goods were no longer available or in short supply, necessitating the use of dearer substitutes. The index did not reveal the full 'extent' ~ to" which "rents had increased, nor the full effects of the present housing shortage, he said. Because of the defects and omissions in the retail price index, it was not possible to estimate exactly the additional increase in the cost pf living. He submitted that an estimate of 2£ per cent was conservative, and asked the court to add that to the, official figure of 5.3 shown in the index and grant a 7.8 increase in wages.

Mr. McLagan also submitted figures of factory employment and output to show that the increase in production was due not only to the increase in the number employed but to higher production by each in a shorter working