FRIDAY, MARCH 24. WAGE REDUCTIONS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 24 March 1922, Page 4

FRIDAY, MARCH 24. WAGE REDUCTIONS.

- It is rather hard luck for the New Zealand Labour Party, which is strenuously opposing wage reductions, that the Queensland Labour Government should have reduced the basic wage in that State in January from £4 5s to £4 per week. There has not been any protest about it by th"c New Zealand Labour Party, but it is a fact that the Queensland Government has found it necessary to reduce the wages of trades unionists and the lower wage now rules in Queensland. But, of course, it is altogether a different matter when Labour in Queensland reduces wages and when the New Zealand Government has to reduce slightly the bonuses paid to its civil servants. The bonuses in New Zealand's case were cost of living bonuses, and it was definitely understood that they would be reduced when the cost of living fell; the basic wage in Queensland's case is similar to the New Zealand Arbitration Court^award. The Queensland basic wage has been reduced by "Eve shillings a, week. That is, a worker who was receiving for a full year's work £221 must now live on £208. Meantime the trades unionists in New Zealand are still enjoying the full awards and bonuses granted by the Arbitration Cour?. Still, the extremists say that the Massey Government is the enemy of the worker. What, then, must they say of the Queensland Government? When Labour has to govern, as in Quenesland, it finds that such matters as retrenchment and lower wages have to be adopted at times, and we do not read of the workers forming alliances to turn Mr. Theodore i out of office. Has not the New Zealand ! Labour Party praised Mr. Theodore for his past actions? Will they praise this I one? The Labour Party's policy in I New Zealand is the senseless one of i fixing wages high" and cutting the prices !of goods low. High wages must prevent the cost of living falling,, for traders cannot continue in business long and employ labour unless there is some margin of profit. A" worker cannot be expected to work for nothing; neither '

can a trauer trade lor nofclving. The fact of the matter is that the Government of New Zealand is. a better friend of the worker than Use Labour Goveru-

ment in Queensland, and workers in this country ax© tar more fortunate than, the workers in Queensland. As the Sydney Morning Herald states, in criticising Mr. Dooley's Government, "Labour says it will fix wages high and cut prices of goods low by Act of Parliament. It has as much hope of doing so as of effecting by legislation prevention of death and taxes. Lenin once thought he could do it too, and Lenin's desolate iand is riddled with famine, and cholera to-day as a result of the same sort of legislative effort.' 1 A~s we have shown on several occasions, thero is no way of escaping the laws -of economics, and all the enchantments or extreme agitators, disciples of the mythical millennium, will be of no avail. Labour may combine to overthrow a Government; it may gt> further and bring about a revolution—always, thej. extremists claim, a bloodless revolution until it takes place, and then it has an awkward habit of developing into chaos and bloodshed—but whatever Labour does it cannot get wealth out of words or doctrines. The peyple of the world have only what they produce by hard work. Large issues of paper money do not mean wealth, as Lenin knows quit< well. There is only one possible way to restore prosperity in the world, ana that is to produce more real wealth. The cost of production, however, must be low enough to stimulate a maximum demand. If high wages prevent that, wages must, of course, be readjusted. No reasonable person wants to see wages reduced just for the sake of reducing them, but when it is absolutely necessary to do so—and it is so — the workers should take a proper view of the position. We think that in New Zealand there is no need to doubt the fairness of itihe Arbitr^tioin Court's awards, and we believe that the court will award Labour every penny it can, having regard to all the circumstances, when the question comes before it in a few weeks' time. Let us quote from two Labour leaders who know what they are talking about. Mr. Appleton, secretary of the General Federation of Trades Unions in Britain, in his book, "What We Want and Where We Are," says:—"Not what is right, but what is expedient, has become the object of the politician. No man occupying or usurping the seat of a statesman, has dared to say to the people that unless they work they must starve. Neither Governments nor Parliaments can overrid© economic law. Let Capital and Labour settle, their differences between themselves, and let the State content itself by keeping the ring, interfering legislatively only when life and health and material are in danger." In another place, referring to the demand in some quarters for a "levy on capital," he says: "You cannot have your cake if you have eaten it, and you cannot develop your trade with capital that his been dissipated. Maintenance without work means universal pauperism. .Work accomplished breeds the possibility of more work to undertake. Employment tends to create employment by developing purchasing power.'' These works are very different from the rubbish talked by the New Zealand Communists, but what will they say when they read of Mr. J. H. Thomas actually defending the capitalist. In iu^book, "Where Labour Rules," Mr. Tnomas says "Let us take the man who provides capital for the development of a business. No one could suggest for a moment that he was anything other than a desirable arid useful citizen, rendering a great service to the community. To suggest that a man occupying that position is a parasite is, of course, playing with the subject as to what is reasonable return for capital There are many more risks in some businesses than in olhers, and it is right that if the greater risk comes off there shonld be a greater return." We suppose we shall be told that these writers are not Labour men, because they do not regard Lfenin as "a great statesman." The fact is that they know too much about Lenin and his ways to be misled and they are also too h-mest to endeavour to mislead the unionls at the head of which they feel it an honour to be. Lenin, however, if one reads his recent statements aright, is changing his belief, and may yet defend the Capitalists' right to exist.