Grey River Argus and Blackball News TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1922. THIRTY-THREE ONE-THIRD PER CENT.

Grey River Argus, 17 January 1922, Page 4

Grey River Argus and Blackball News

TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1922. THIRTY-THREE ONE-THIRD PER CENT.

Delivered every mo. ning in G. utt * v Hckitika. Dobson. W.dlseud, Tan., .ate, Cr-,.-.. Ngahsre. Blackball, Nelson Creek, fkunuer, Te Kingha kutomanii, Poeiua, Inchbun-oe, Patara, Ruru, Kain.ata, Kotuku, Moina, Araiika, DuaolHe, Cobden, Baxters. Kokiri, Ahaura, Ikaniatua, Stulwater, Waiuta, Reefton, Ross, Ruatapua, Mananin, H-*ri Han, Waiho Gorge, Wehelca, Rewanui, Otira, hiangahua Junction, Westport, Waimungana, Denniston. Granity, Millerton. Ngakawau. Hector, Seddouville, Cape Foulwind, and Karam*?.

During their term of office the Tory politicians have dealt out to the working class many a hard knock, but perhaps the latest is to be the unkindest cut of all. Already the wages of many workers have been reduced, and some of their most militant organisations placed on the wrack operated by the whole strength which the Government and its backers can muster up. But wc wonder whether, as a class, the public servants are likely to submit tamely when a reduction is proposed in their bonus of no less than onethird. What seems possible, indeed, is that eventually it will be found there is not to be so great a reduction in the smaller salaries —nobody could credit it in the case of wages below £6 per week—but no cut should operate at all upon salaries below £3OO per annum. With that proviso, and perhaps another graduating the reductions on the higher salaries, it is possible that a case could be made out for a. reduction, but it must always be a questionable method of conserving State finance. As before pointed out, many times, the basic idea of the. Government’s economy policy is to pluck the wage-earn-ers for the benefit of the class whose incomes conic from the labour of others. Tire earning departments of tho State have had admittedly their productivity greatly reduced of late. The Government claim has been that this is due solely to lack of business; whereas the increase of the charges all-round has done probably far more to destroy business and reduce earning power. It is a fact that the lowerpaid public servants were among the last to have their wages adjusted to the rise in the cost of living—but that argument, of course, now cuts no ice—for the Government has obviously lost sight of tho cost of living altogether, if it has decided on a bonus cut of 33 1-3 per cent. One of half as much would be in the majority of cases, quite unjustified in view of the present prices of necessaries; and why should public servants have their wages reduced in anticipation of a greater reduction in the cost of loving that may, or may not, occur later on? ■ Are all the agreements and promises

made by the Government to the organisations of its servants to be ignored? The wealthy classes have lately been unanimous in crying out for retrenchment, and ’twould appear that it is to their tune the Government is dancing in proposing such a drastic cut. Is it hoped to raise another surplus for the land-owners ’ benefit such as that spent on buying land from them at fancy prices after the war? The State is going to back up this and that farmers’ pool, so why should the workers be asked to accept treatment of the opposite kind? Doubtless Parliament and the public will be told that the Government had only two alternatives, cither to cut all salaries as proposed, or else dispense with the services of some hundreds or thousands of its servants. There has been, and is still, another alternative, however, but the big incomes are having their taxation reduced instead of increased, likewise that of the land owners. While the latter now say land values are fictitious they want no revaluation such as they know would treble their taxation, judged on the prices they demand when a sale is mooted. There should certainly have been a levy on 1 capital in this country concurrrently with that being made now upon wages, whether by the Arbitration Court or the Cabinet. This is what it amounts to —that instead of listening to Labour’s plea for fair play and a levy on capital, the levy has instead been imposed upon wages. When the further reductions have been imposed, we may hear it given out that things have taken a sudden turn for the better, meaning that the margin of profit will be greater, and such as to attract the exploiter once more to get as busy as during the war. Indeed, it is quite likely there will be, in due course, an increase in the public servants, but with the difference that wages will be less, and the benefit of cheaper services will accrue almost wholly to the capitalists. The effect of such a wage cut as that proposed by the Government (must be to further reduce other wages. It is certainly difficult to believe the Prime Minister meant all he said when he indicated an all-round reduction of onethird. Perhaps he wished to prepare those concerned for treatment the fairness of which is questionable, and may be he hopes to ease their anxiety presently by naming a smaller proportion as the actual reduction. Even so, the workers can rely at least on the Labour Party in Parliament to expose the injustice involved in the, proposal. And as to the workers themselves, surely they can be now relied on to take the first opportunity presented to give this administration the quietus it has already so richly merited.