MINIMUM WAGE FOR LABOUR.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 147, 7 June 1911, Page 3

MINIMUM WAGE FOR LABOUR.

MR. CROOKS’ MOTION.

In the House of Commons yesterday Mr. Crooks (Lab.) raised a discussion' on the question of a general 30/- minimum wage, and moved

That the right of every family of the country to an income sufficient to enable it to maintain its members in decency and comfort should be recognised ; and this House is therefore of opinion that a general minimum wage of 30/- per week for every adult worker should be established by law, and also declares that the Government should set an example by adopting this standard in its own workshops. j There ought, he declared, to be ,a load line, a Plimsoll mark for i stomachs. The average cost of the feeding of a child in district schools, cottages, or scattered homes was 2 3.’. per week. The cost of feeding a soldier was 5/7 per week. On this standard the average family could very easily spend £1 per week on feeding alone. I The question was, could a working man earning 30/- a week feed his children on the minimum scale laid down by the workhouse officials? The answer was, “No, he could not.” No man could live in decency, to say nothing of comfort, on less than 30/- a week. Lt was a case of

Monday plenty, Tuesday some, I a little o’ Wednesday, and Thurs- | day none. Don’t worry about | Friday, you get your money to--1 morrow.

That was the average lot of the man earning the miserable wage paid—even when he got 30/- a week. It was worse on less.

Mr. W. Thorne (Lab.), seconding the resolution, declared that in spite of the tremendous increase of national wealth.the position of the working-classes was worse now than some years ago. STARTLING FIGURES. Mr. Tennant, on behalf of the Government, regretted that he could not accept the motion. He could hold out no hope that the Government could embark upon a scheme of legislative finance for a general minimum wage throughout the country. Of the 7,300,000 persons actually in employment, of whom the Government had statistics, no less than 60 per cent, received less than 30/- per week. To bring their wages up to 30/- would mean £1,700.000 a week extra, which would involve an annual charge of no less than £88,000,000. Had the mover of the motion considered the case of agriculture, of the casual labourer, of the town worker as against the rural worker ? Were all those workers to be paid the same. amount ? Was the cost of living in a particular locality to receive no consideration whatever ? Was the piece-worker to be guaranteed 30'- a week, irrespective of his output ?

Any considerable or sudden increase in the rate of wages must, in course of time, bring about an I increase in the cost of production, | and dislocate labour. If that were (done, they would invite foreign competition. While low wages were undesirable, no wages at all and want of employment would be even worse. Moreover, a minimum wage w’as very apt to become a maximum.

Colonel Lockwood (U.) said be felt so strongly on the subject of the minimum wage in Government departments that he was bound to support the motion.