EMPLOYERS’ CASE

Grey River Argus, 25 August 1937, Page 5

EMPLOYERS’ CASE

AGAINST WAGES RISE Put to the Court “COSTS” TO THE FORE. n I Per Press Association], AUCKLAND, August 24. The view that there was no justilif cation for what, he submitted, was the Arbitration Court’s present stands ard of wages being departed Trom, r was expressed by Mr D. I. MacDonald, ? Secretary of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, in opening' the em- ;* ployers’ case when the Arbitration i Court continued its hearing of the standard wage arguments. / Mr Justice O’Regan presided, and - with him were associated Mr W. 1 Cecil Prime (employers’ member? 1 and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees’ 5 member). “In deference to the wishes of the Court, the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, in conjunction with the Manufacturers’ Federation, the Farmers’ Union, the Sheepowners’ Union, and all groups .of employers affiliated to the Employers’ Federation, has de--1 cided to submit its representations ' tnrough one advocate, and one or two ’ witnesses only will be called by me,” Mr MacDonald said. “The trend, under recent legislation has been to extend the'field of industry over which the Court, has a direct influence,” he continued. “The effect of the pronouncement of the. Court i following the present hearing, will, ; therefore, be more widespread than has ever been the case in the past, and the importance of the Court fixing rates at levels appropriate to the economic condition of the country is, therefore, probably greater to-day than ever previously.” Various general wage movements which had taken place, from time to time, during the life of' the Court up to the 1925 pronouncement, were traced by Mr MacDonald. He submitted that, generally, the Court’s present standard rates were: Unskilled 2s 0.2 d per nour, semi-skilled 2s 1.3 d to 2s 4.05 d per hour, skilled 2s 5.7 d per hour. These rates were arrived at, he said, by equating the 1925 standard to the 40-hour week from tire 44-hour week. The economic conu.non of the country. was reviewed by' Mr MacDonald. He submitted that, at a time' of rising prices, such as" the present, it Was all the more important that the Court should weigh most seriously the ability of New Zealand’s industries to nourish under increased costs. Wages increases, he said, could not fail to increase costs of production, and in many cases, such increases were cumulative. Increased costs and prices must, in the end, result in reduced consumption, followed by a falling-o r in production and in employment. 1 e said that the major cause of the rapid increase in unemployment in New Zealand from 1929 onwards was undoubtedly, the inability, of industrialists, both primary and secondary, to get their internal costs adjusted to reduced spending power, winch resulted from a fall in export prices. Any increase in internal costs in excess of an improvement, in export prices, at the present stage in New Zealand s recovery from the depression, could not fail to set back this recovery. Mr MacDonald held that wages had risen considerably more uian had retail prices, and wholesale prices> over last year. Consequently, a cone t conclusion could be drawn that the position of the wage earner to-day was much better than it was twelve months ago. The latest statistics showed that the average of wage rates was now 64 per cent h g er than in 1914, but that the cost of hving was only 46.3 per cent, highei. The cost of living, at present, indiIcated no necessity to increase wage : rates, but rather the reverse. He continued: “I most definitely submit that the Court would be making a serious error if it departed from ths practice of many years of fixing . its standard rates in accordance witn . the cost of living and the general economic condition of the mdas J lias the country as a whole, and not the economic position of a few of the more-sheltered industries, oi giou.is Of *T V consider that. 4d to 5d per hour is an ample margin to exist between the unskilled and skilled rate insofar as any standard fixed by this Court is concerned. The Court has to fi x a general set of rates, based on the major considerations of P ast sta ™* -ards—the cost of living and the ge 1eral economic conditions. Any failure to act on these factors—particularly were present tendencey to recovery to be suddenly arrested-would ortly intensify difficulties towards adjustment in future. The Court has, m all previous general pronouncements, recognised the necessity for declaring standard rates on an hourly basis ( There seems to be no necessity for * parting from this custom. «