The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, October 21st, 1936. THE BASIC WAGE ARGUMENT.

Grey River Argus, 21 October 1936, Page 4

The Grey River Argus WEDNESDAY, October 21st, 1936. THE BASIC WAGE ARGUMENT.

The employers ar c bringing to their aid the testimony of members of the teaching profession in the effort to persuade the Arbitration Court, it must keep down the basic, wage. They rightly say it. will be a foundation for ali wages, but when they add that it must be macle a sound foundation, it is fair to ask what they mean by the term sound. Is it a sound profit rather than a sound subsistence they mean? Their traditional view is that wages depend on what capital is set aside for labour. Wages are thus held 1o be one of the categories of costs, and no more. If 31r Bishop could persuade the Court to adopt this view, he might have no difficulty in proving that in some directions a reduction of wages would promote industry. But by that process of reasoning, the human factor in labour would be ignored. Thg Court cannot ignore one thing. Wages are the first charge on industry. Profit comes only second. As a matter of fact, labour is the source of profit as well as of wages. Once this fundamental principle is recognised, it ought to be easy enough for the Court to fix a. basic wage that will fulfill the ideal of a sound foundation to which Mr Bishop refers. He says the workers ask too much -when they consider a family as an essential in the calculation. He indicates many workers arc either single or without, a family, or without a family of the size named in the workers’ proposals. Docs he mean to say. therefore, I hat there shall be no allowance for a family? That would leave those workers with dependents a task to battle sectionally, if not individually, for themselves in order to secure, first, some wage addition to provide for dependents; and, second, to secure jobs as against men whose labour employers could engage at lower “cost.” The value of labour may be difficult, to fix, as also is the true cost of living, but it would be utterly unfair Io ask the Court to weigh the scales against the workers in either ease. What is here meant is that it would bo wrong, for instance, to quote, the cost of living exclusively in assessing th e value of labour, which is denoted by what it produces; just as it. wotdd be wrong Io say some labour would not be worth a rate according with the cost of living. Tt is fair to say that whichever of these factors makes for the better wage, it is the. one that should be the criterion. It would be interesting to hear what, arguments there might be for selecting whichever of the two might, be the lower as the guide. The basic wage should undoubtedly allow for a family. It is fairly certain this allowance would not on the average exceed, the value of labour. It is often impossible to ascertain hidden profits, but wages are known Io evervbodv. The educational

people are. introducing a bit of a. conundrum. They say, in el’feef. that tlie value of labour shall not become Ihe guide to a basic, wage for workers below lite age of 23 years. They are really less concerned about workers that’ pupils whom they fear to be likely to lose education in a desire to qualify at 21 for the basic wage. This ought to suit down to the ground every boss who sees an opening to employ those under 23 to the maximum extent and those over that age to the minimum extent. In many industries, employers ar e quite as efficient between the ages of IS and 23 as they are when older, and certainly arc at the peak of their vigour. No doubt, if kept on low pay until 23. they will go further to lend colour to the employe*s’argnment against fixing a rate At for a family when they do reach that age. That, however, is about the worst way conceivable of justifying their argument. Education is undoubtedly a tine, thing, general as well as vocational, but the education system ought to be adaptable for young workers in those leisure hours which the tutors appear to think they will be unable to us r . to Hie best advantage. In 'i--, education is such a good thing that woulu be a pity to torn b into a bad "bing by using it as an instrument of impoverishment.