WAGE REDUCTION

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 301, 6 December 1922, Page 3

WAGE REDUCTION

McCombs and Arlntf ation Court

The Editor, Sir,—ln regard to the Judgment Of the Arbitration Court relative to the bonus reduction, I would like to say definitely and emphatically that in my opinion tlie workers ara not receiving a square ileal from the Government or from ihe Court. During tho war period .tho Court definitely refused to increase wages in proportion eto tlie Increase in the cost 'Of living. Althongh it liiay be true that the workers are, to-day, as well oG as they were in 1918-19, that is not tho real point at Issue. In a judgment, dated March 6, J 919, Mr. Justice Stringer stated that "notwirlmaniiVng several increases granted by the Court during the war to workers in different industries they aro now in a worse, position financially t!mn they \yars at the outbreak of the war, inasmuch as their real as distinguished from theiv nominal! wages have been reduced." In March 1919 when that statement was made the award' rates with, bon- j uses added amounted to 1/6 per hour for unskilled workers;- 1/9 for semiskilled, and 1/10 for skilled, representing respectively a 29 per cent., 24 per cent., and 22 per cent, .increase) in wages over 1914 rates. now i know from Mr. Justice Frazer's pronouncement in connection with tho; Public Expenditure .Adjustment Act: that the in-crease in the cost of living.j at that period was 73 per cent> The { Court then increased the basic wage; and the -bonuses in each class, the total ! remuneration, being 1/10 for unskilled; workers, 2/1 for semi-skilled, and 2/3 ; i'or skilled, representing respectively j 37 per cent., '51 per cent., and 50 per j cent, increases in wages tc meet an j ascertained increase in the cost of: living of 73 per cent. While these iv- | adequate increases in wages were b*.- -, Ing paid, the cost ot living went still j higher and then a further 9/- a week; ■bonus was granted which was after-,; wards reduced to 3/-, because o£ a '" -successful-agitation try tho employers and because the CVcvernment threatened to introduce- legislation giving fresh direction to the Coui't. Now, as ihe result of tltc- leg'siation placed on tho StatitUs Book tu-o sps--sion before last, the Court is steacl-ly reducing- wages in sivict. proportion «o the decrease in the cost of living , , although, on the upgrade, wages were not so increased and arc to-day insufficient to maintain the- 1914 standard of Uving. It is the manifest Injustice j ot the Government's It-gishidon ami o£ the action or t.Lo Court which is so galling to the workers. To jro into details would take up * too much space but the, real position to-day..may be briefly stated thus: —■ Unskilled workers in 1814 received 1/2 per hour. . To meet the Court's ascertained, increase in the cost of ' ( living of CO per cenfc. they shoivid liow receive 1/105- -per-:hour;, but as the "< result of the Courts recent decision they . will next month receive only . 1/SS —or l : id-.per hour less than (hey ' ought t o receive in order to merely ' maintain wages at the pui'ciiasing level of 1914. The wages' of semi- .' skilled wprkort, will be 2§cl per hour ' or 11/- per week short, of the purchasing power of the wages paid in 1914, while skilled workers, such as car- J penters and plumbers, who in 191-1 were-;- receiving 1/6 per hour, should to-day be receiving 2/5 per feour to meet the present GO per cent, increase an the cost of liv-ng. Now, under the f Court's recent pronouncement, skilled workers instead of receiving 2/5 will be reduced to 2/lJi per hour; -and £ their wages measured in purchasing I power will be old per hour or 13/- a week short of the 1914 standard. In stating that the reduced wages paid to-day have the same purchasing power as the wages pa-d iv 191S--19 (a Ktalement which is approxim- n ately correct) (ho Court is either try- c ing to throvs r - dust in the eyes of the b or it is evading the real is- tJ sue. The cost of living increases are calculated on 1914 prices, and the real t< test is that the wages paid to-day are a 7/11 and 13/- a week short of 'an h 4 amount sufficient-to maintain the 1914 standard of living. The legislation of v the Government, and the recent decisions or the Court are in eftect maiting permanent and perpetuating for all time the wartime sacrifices imposed on the workers during the war tl period. To make the comparison s , with 1918-19, when real wages had (been admittedly reduced; is to add tr insult to injury. The Court should stiste the position frankly and fairly. t< If it is determined to pursue a dif- a] ferent method on. the down-grade — from that which, was adopted on the up-grade, it should drop all camouUa'ge and say so quite honestly.—l am, etc., J. SIcC'OMB3 J w