CIVIL SERVANTS’ RIGHTS.

Grey River Argus, 19 June 1922, Page 3

CIVIL SERVANTS’ RIGHTS.

STANDARD OF LIVING TOO LOW. NEED FOR UNITY OF WORKERS. The Ci til Servants are at present showing an example 1o other workers by ih.-ir movement towards unity. The Government has put an embargo on lheir uniting with the workers outside the State’s employ, but it surely is unlikely that the Ministry will do likewise as against one big union of Civil Servants. Th-o railway officers and postal men have no illusions as to Mr Massey’s platitudes about more production, and they are aware the only hope for the worker is solidarity in the lace of a war upon wages indiscriminately: There is no need for wage cuts, and the quest for higher profits is the sole motive for the* present movement among employers 1o obtain, them. It is highly probable that further improvements in business, now as in the past, -will bo accompanied by raising prices, and that the rise will begin in the spring and continue into ,1923. Il is also probable, on the evidence of price records, that during the next year or two the prices of a considerable number of important basic commodities will show an increase of from 25 to 50 per cent, above th-e low points of 1921/’ Upon, the same evidence it is reasonable to expect that the general average of wholesale prices will show an increase of about .10 per cent. The coining one will lie a year of easier money,, better business, more stable prices, and higher profits limn was last year, and. there is evidence also that the general movement of business and wholesale juices will he up ward. Twelve months ago the Court of Arbitration decided to withhold payment of a 5s bonus which was deemed to be due and stabilise wages for one vear. The Court pointed out that it was better for all concerned not to give an increase in wages in Alay and follow it by a. greater reduction six months later in November. For the arrangement to be an equitable one a reduction in prices equivalent to l()s a week in wages would have had to take place at the end of the first six months thereby creating a minus 5s in the second six months to ofl-s-.'t or cancel the plus 5s which was due 10 be paid during the first six months. In other words the withholding of the. pavinent of a. bonus for six months was to be offset by the withholding of a reduction of a .similar amount for a similar period. The workers, however, appealed because they preierred the cash t<» the promise and because there did not seem to be any reasonable probability of prices falling to the extent of 10s a week in six months. For various reasons, tbo reductions in the cost of living have not been as rapid us the Court anticipated, and the fall of 10s which should havo taken place at the. end of. the first six months did not take place until the end of the year. Furth-or-morc, according to the published index figures, covering GO per cent, oi the total budget, the greatest fall took place in the lust six months of the year, the fall in the first six months being 43 points whereas the fall in the latter half was S 3 points indicating that the. fall at the end of the first six months was less than half the 10s fall, which was necessary to make the .arrangement an equitable one. As the which *.vas Anticipated ’H > take place in six months did not take place until the end of .12 months, the stabilisation period should be extended for one year as promised a year ago by the Arbitration Court. Look at the several increases which have taken place in the price of butter sinc-e the present computation was made in the middle of March. How can so-called “'relief” committees ask married men to maintain a family on 12s a day? Labour protests against the nonpublication of what is known as the •‘all groups” index numbers and percentage figures. The last time they were published was for August, 1920, when an increase in the cost of living of 77 per cent, was revealed after which jirices went still higher reaching th-eir peak about March, 1921. The withholding of these figures is very unfair to the public and to everyone concerned in Arbitration Court cases. The British Government publishes every month, an “all it-ems” percentage number. Rent increases have been greater than the statistics have shown. Before the recent cut, and in addition to the reduction already effected by withholding the 5s bonus, • tual wages have also been reduced. In many instances employers who weye paying considerably more than the minimum provided bv the Court have reduced wages to minimum rates thus effecting other trades and industries by reducing the spending power of the people. There is also the reduction which intermittent employment means. These reductions in wages arc affecting the retail traders’ returns and will effect industry in turn because they lower the general purchasing power of the people. It must be remembered also that when prices were on the up grade the workers were not granted equivalent to the increases in the cost of living. Three principal decisions of the Arbitration Court operated, to prevent the workers receiving increases in pay equal to the increases in the cost of living. It was not until November, 1918, that the Court was given definite power to review existing awards and increase wages in proper

ion to the increase in the cost of livng. Tn giving judgment in March, 1919. Vfr Justice Stringer stated that:— “Notwithstanding several increases granted by the Court during the war o workers in different industries, they ire now in a worse position financially han they were al the outbreak of the var inasmuch its their real as distinguished from their nominal wages hadicon reduced.” That position remains to-day because dl increases granted since that prolouncement did not go back further han the six months •ending March, 919. In fact the position stated by Jr Justice Stringer regarding the reluction of real wages has since been Lcccntuutcd, firstly, by a method of omputing bonuses, which the Governiicnt Statistician said was not satisactory, but which the Court insisted n, namely, the computation of all bouses on ilie influenza epidemic price •oak period ns base, when food prices use nearly lUO points in three months. Li', in the first place, the workers md been given any allowance in wages o compensate for this abnormal price mak in December, 1918, there might lave been some justification for the ?ourt insisting that price increases should be measured upwards commencng from the mean of this mountain »eak of prices. r J’he result was that he workers lost 6s of the 9s bonus vhich the acting Government Statisti•ian said was due, he having made his computation on lines which ho consider'd fair and reasonable. Tnat the Employers’ Association realised that a 9s jonus was due even before the Court made its pronouncement is evidenced by an interview given to the newspa pers the day after the 9s bonus wa announced. The report read as follows ;—“A remarkable prediction. ’

“Mr Pryor is reported as having reniarked incidentally that ail three declarations of the Court had been predicted months and months ago with remarkable accuracy by Mr Cooper, Secretary of the Christchurch Employers’ Association. He was a man thoroughly familiar with statistics, and made his conclusions by means of mathematical deductions. When he declared his conviction that the November bonus would be at least 9s per week, Mr Cooper had been laughed at; but lhe recent declaration of the Court had proved bis suppositions correct, as in the case of the previous bonuses of 4s and Gs. ” There was the Stabilisation pronouncement which has not worked out exactly as the Court anticipated alihongh that matter can now bo adjusted by extending the period of stabilisation. In view of all these circumstances it would be obviously unfair to reduce wages to the amount shown bv the reduction in the. cost of living because wages were not so increased on the up-grade. To do so would multiply by two the disadvantages and hardships which the workers had to put up with during the war period and since. The net result of these various decisions and policies is that the work ers are not now receiving, with bonuses included, a rate of remuneration sufficient to ‘‘maintain a fair standard of living.” The Court may not bo aware of it; but so greatly has the workers’ standard of living been lowered in New Zealand since 1914 that the allowance of £1 8s 4d for groceries, dairy produce anil meat, for a family of live, is less than that allowed by Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards in outdoor relief to provide for a ‘‘more subsistence level,” and to-lower wages still further would be absolutely criminal. The Act requires the Court not to lower wages below what is necessary ‘‘to maintain a fair standard of living.”

The wording of the Act makes it par. fectly plain that the maintenance a fair standard of living overrides all other considerations. At present all employers and the Government don’’, care a halfpenny for the standard of living.