THE GREY RIVER ARGUS. WEDNESDAY, January 20, 1926. THE TIMBER WORKERS.

Grey River Argus, 20 January 1926, Page 4

THE GREY RIVER ARGUS. WEDNESDAY, January 20, 1926. THE TIMBER WORKERS.

The correspondent who, in another column, suggests we should find for him the proof of his contention that a movement is afoot for the weekly payment of wages to timber workers, would se«‘ii to forget that the onus of proof does not lie with us, but with himself. This allegation in his previous letter wo questioned because any in- , formal discussions on the question , among the Union members are no more to be regarded as proof of the official inauguratio'n cf such a demand than is some informal discussion of the minimum wage to be considered a proof of official action. We have yet to learn that we were wrong. We are prepared to admit that we believe the minimum should be raised. For one thing, our correspondent admits he is himself paying a minimum that is 3/4 above the award minimum. Does he suggest, then, that an increase in the latter of 3/4 will bo beyond the limit? Not, at my rate, «o far as concerns the particular venture for which he is able to speak better than he is for any other mitt. Having now acknowledged that he is an employer, we can see our correspondent, regards the whole question from purely an employer’s viewpoint. Indeed, the chief point of his letter is that he is opposed altogeth.T to the very principle of any mnimum wage whatever, The worker, he says, I'V his ability alone, fixes his own rate vt pay: he ••cannot sec any sense in i union forcing a man's wages up.’’ Now we have here a eont radicl ion. If Tie individual worker is the controlling factor, the Union cannot be! Then ivhv say the Union has reached the limit .’ It is, according to our corresDomlcnt. really futile. So why squeal? No doubt our correspondent’s heart >lec(ls for flic men “not worth ](>/- |)er day.’’ ]-|<> wants to sec them enidoyed. At how much? lie docs not >ay, beyond declaring “what they ire worth.-” Now’ we put this “pracical’' question to this “practical 7 l

man. Who decides the wages of the men. who in his estimation are “not worth 10/- per day?’’ We say it is the employer, if there is no legal minimum fixed. And, if that is so, it is to be inferred that the higher rates also are fixed, not by tho worker, but by the employer. One may outbid another, but the initiative lies under the pres ent system, not with the wage worker, but with the man who controls the capital. (..'onsequently, if the award miniiiium did nut exist, men who, in an employer’s estimation, were “not worth 10/- per day,” would bo given, say, 5/-. Two such would be preferred to one man at a higher rate in many instances, and as skill became more general, the employers would lower their valuation, un account of decreased competition, and the maximum then would fall below the present miniinum. Our correspondent considers the legal minimum wage is solely in the interests of unskilled men. He seems to forget the principle of a living wage. If a man works, he should live at least by his labour, and the minimum wage is no rno/o than a subsistence one. If employers want the minimum abolished t can only be to employ labour termed by our correspondent unskilled, which runs counter to his argument that unskilled men are always “’fired out.” The truth is that, the employer has the more use for the man whose labour returns the largest volume of surplus value, whether he be highly or lowly paid. Our correspondent suggests a duty on imported timber equal io the difference between the cost of production here and in the countries whence we import. We arc aware long hours at 6/- per day are the rule in some of those countries, and would like our correspondent to explain why the workers there produce at such a rate when they control their rates. For our part, we believe the reason is the absence there of a legal minimum living wage Our correspondent may think otherwise .and he might explain why. It is the conviction of wage worker.generally, founded on experience, that a rise in the minimum means a rise in the maximum wage, and we fancy our eorraspondent, it may be subconscious ly, knuwf as much also. Hence his objection to Union action for the maintenance of a minimum.