ARBITRATION COURT.
THE EMPLOYEES' CASE
——. (BY TELEGRAPH—PRESS ASSOCIATION ) i WELLINGTON, April 23. ! Mr M. J. Mack, secretary of the' -A.5.R.8., continued the employees' c<;se ■before the Arbitration Court to-day in «support of the case against a reduction •of bonus, saying that the railwaymen who did not all pay such high, rent as -other workers and received part of xheir -clothing, were not able tcv keep pace with, the cost of living on present wages without overtime. Mr Evans (Otago) contended that no reduction should rom© before the commission. He defined a reasonable stond-; -ard of living. j Mr Armstrong, on behalf of Canter-' bury Unions, protested against any re- - duction, saying; that the 1914 standard • of living had not been sufficient, and that the wages of to-day did not enable them to. live up to that standard. If a commission were appointed it should go closely into the question of rents. A reduction of wages was no way to improve thftjiifosperity of the country. Mr W. Maddison dealt exclusively ■with the subject of a fair standard of ljving, saying that if a proper standard were set up it would result in an increased output, greater industrial peace and increased national wealth.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HNS19220428.2.68
Bibliographic details
Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 28 April 1922, Page 7
Word Count
201ARBITRATION COURT. Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 28 April 1922, Page 7
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.