The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, February 19, 1949. DISPUTES OVER MARGINAL PAYMENTS

Grey River Argus, 19 February 1949, Page 4

The Grey River Argus SATURDAY, February 19, 1949 . DISPUTES OVER MARGINAL PAYMENTS

DISPUTES of an economic character prevalent in the Dominion at present are not limited to the wages question. 1 he. carpenters’ case may have been placed in a somewhat unfavourable light by the fact tha- the go-slow policy has been used in Auckland, but it is quite evident that competition among employers for labour has been also a major factor. Not all of the workers, by any means, had been resorting to go-slow, but those chiefly whose wages were lower than the pay of other workers. Should it be said that all employers ought to stand by the lower ‘rate, as being that of the award, it cannot at the same time be argued that workers ought not seek or accept payment above the award. Moreover, it is a question whether the great demand for building should be left entirely to be exploited financially by employers, and that the workers should not share in the prosperity of the industry in a proportionate degree. The minimum wage under awards is normally the maximum, although the fact at the present stage in New Zealand is that a larger number of workers are paid above the award than has previously been so paid. The Auckland carpenters, whilst they may be open to criticism lor limiting production, declare that their stand has been taken against the larger building firms, on account of their determination to prevent employees sharing as equitably in the proceeds of the industry as the smaller employing firms are doing. This situation reflects once again the inequitable nature of the wages system, and indicates the wisdom ot a fairer method of dividing the proceeds of industry. Were labour supply to be in excess of demand, there is no doubt that the employers would take advantage of this, without acknowledging that the principle of* equity was involved, whereas the workers are referred to that principle when they seek any advantage from the present excess of demand for labour over the supply of labour. However, therefore, the limitation on output might be open to question on the moral plane, it must nevertheless be regarded at the same time in the light of the employers’ competition for labour, and the presumption it lends to the view that normal output in the existing state of the market is worth more than the minimum i-ate of remuneration. As things stand, the dispute has become a test of the economic resources of the respective parties. If the opportunit iy offers, however, the Government may be expected to propose a more conciliatory course, which should be in the best interests of all concerned.

The dispute between the retailers and the growers of fruit and vegetables as to who shall pay for containers illustrates the fact that small margins may mean a good deal for traders no less than workers. The present is the second contest on this score, and the only beneficiaries in the meantime may be the consumers, to the extent that they may obtain cheaper supplies. The retailers may have a case, but they ought to think twice over the effect of direct trading between grower and consumer, which could conceivably result in mutual advantage to the extent that they might share the proceeds which go ordinarily to the middleman. New Zealand has several examples of co-operative trading on the part of consumers, and in the export industries examples also of producer co-operatives. There, is a field for producer co-opera-tives outside the dairying industry, or the fruit exporting industry, one being that of the fruit and vegetable retail trade. The producers must find small margins to be important when they take up their present stand. For one thing, they are not able to pass on charges which their customers refuse to meet, whereas the retailers are at least in a better position in that respect. Here again the most sensible proposition is conciliation, and it may be expected that an agreement, will soon come about. Arbitration might afford the fairest or most lasting solution, but as the parties are so largely dependent on each other they ought soon to be ready to reach a workable compromise.