The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, December 20, 1941. THE WAGES QUESTION.

Grey River Argus, 20 December 1941, Page 4

The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, December 20, 1941. THE WAGES QUESTION.

It appears that the Arbitration Court has been more concerned with conditions that might, than with conditions that actually have, come about in consequence of the war, in deciding the application of the workers for a wages increase of 7.8 per cent. The Court claims to have anticipated 19 points of the 53 points increase in the cost of Hying since it made its previous

award last year of a five per cent, increase, and says the remaining’ 34 points means a rise of 3.31 pel 1 cent, in the cost of living, which it leaves the wage earners to shoulder. The Court certainly cijfces the Governnient Statistician’s statement that weekly wage rates have increased since the last wages order by more than five per cent., but this averaging leaves many workers out of account, as the increases have been sectional, and not general. The Court acknowledges that the retail prices index since the last wage order has risen 8.54 per cent., and that since the war broke out, the wages index had lagged behind the retail price index to the extent of 2.73 per cent. To make the matter look better, the Court observes that in Britain workers do not appear to have fared relatively as well as they have here done. A comparison might be, however, made with some other country where the conditions are not even as good as in Britain without making the position any better for the workers of the Dominion. It may be admitted that the Court has been faced with a difficulty which the Government itself has just recognised. A general five per cent, rise would, for many workers either with lower pay or with large families, mean still an inadecpiate wage whereas for other better- paid workers it would mean a distinct improve ment. The necessity for some means of discrimination is evident and last night the Prime Minister’ announced that the Government intends empowering the Court to exercise just such a discrimination and increase the lower wage levels otherwise than by orders affecting all grades of wage earners. This is fair and reasonable. Another indication that the Court’s decision cannot be regarded as really equitable is that the Government also has decided to increase the wages of

the lowei* paid members of the public service. A very good.case was put before the Arbitration Court, on the workers’ behalf by their spokesman, and the Court has failed to note his obvious point that the cost of living increased by not a few factors of which the Official Statistics cited by the Court .take absolutely no account. The Workers’ Representative on the Court points out that the burden of rising prices is being shouldered mainly upon the wage earners, and this on no grounds of economic necessity, but on such questionable assumptions as that there are not enough commodities to allow of wage earners being enabled to obtain a fully adequate supply. This pitting—in theory—of one section against another in the matter of the ratio of commodities is often a ruse merely to. keep down production costs insofar as they may be due to labour so as to offset increases in such costs whereof others than the wage earners are the beneficiaries. If some goods, or rather classes of goods, are lacking, nobody can buy them, but if they only are limited, it is the same thing for the worker, as he cannot pay the price. But if there are other classes in abundance, the wage earner ought to be. enabled to make his demand for them effective. The workers at least are as well entitled as any other section to adequate subsistence and comfort, because they play a bigpart in the war effort, and if they are stinted the war effort, might suffer. The .cost of living is no problem for many people, but every increase in it is a problem for very many more people. The Government’s decision to subsidise more commodities so as to prevent price increases to the consumers is significant. Manifestly the Court has been guided primarily by anxiety as to the future, especially as to checks on exports and imports, but the wage earners’ problem is by no means prospective. It is actual.