WAGES “CUT”

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 23 February 1931, Page 3

WAGES “CUT”

PROTEST BY ALLIANCE OF LABOUR

OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSALS AIR FORBES IX REPLY A deputation representing the Alliance of Labour waited upon the Prime Minister (the Right Hon. G. W. I‘orbes) yesterday to protest against any reduction in wages, especially those ot tiie lower-paid men. It was claimed (reports the “Post”) that a reduction in the case of men on the lower scale wouJd place an unjust and inequitable burden on their shoulders. The secretary of the Alliance (Air. J. Roberts) while remarking that he did not desire to make any threat, said that no union official could advise his men to do anything but refuse to accept any reduction. In his reply, Mr Forbes said he regretted the attitude that the deputation had taken up as lie felt that the programme he had outlined would in the long run be in the.best interests of the working men. He was convinced that a reduction in costs would result in a reduction in the cost of living. At any rate, it was ridiculous to suggest that in the face of a reduced income of £20,000,000 the country could carry on in the same wav.

Air Roberts said the declaration of the Government came as a bombshell, for, although they knew that the banks and financial institutions at Heme were squeezing the Dominions, they did expect there would be some inquiry into the position of the workers. The statement had regard only to the position of the primary producers, and was really like a thief in the night. Although he was not speaking for the Civil Service, he knew that many of the lower paid Civil Servants were having a struggle to live at the present time. The Arbitration Court, it might be taken for granted, would follow the lead which had been given by the Government. If that was so, there would be many workers who. would be unable to meet their obligations in respect of rent and interest, and that would mean that the Government would suffer. It was all very well to say that the cost of living would come down, but rents, insurance and interest would not come down. There had been some talk of equality of sacrifice, but the worker who lost 8s a week would suffer more than the higherpaid man. It would simply mean that he and his family would have to go with less food. Mr Forbes :“What if food is cheaper?” Mr Roberts: “But is food cheaper?” Mr Forbes: ‘‘What about meat?” Mr Roberts: “Yes, but what is the use of cheap meat if the worker hasn't the money to buy it?” Mr Roberts went on to say that the man with the salary of £2OOO, £IOOO, or even £750 a year would be far better off with his ten per cent, cut than the worker on, say, £2OO a year. Air Forbes: “The man with £2OOO a year might have greater obligations.” NO EQUAL SACRIFICE

Air Roberts said there could be no suggestion of equal sacrifice under the proposals of the J’rimo Minister. In 1929 the Government had practically promised to have an investigation made into the cost of living,, but nothing had been done. The workers of New Zealand felt and were entitled to feel, that they had not received a fair deal from the previous Government or the present Government. When prices were soaring the Government had made no move to assist the workers, but as soon as the farmers and a few propagandists went round the country the Government at : tacked the wages of the workers. Watersiders, coal-miners, seamen, and hotel workers had all received a big reduction in wages by virtue of the casual nature of their work, and yet on top of that the Government proposed a further “cut” of 10 per cent. The workers were being made the victims of the banking and financial institutions. Mr Roberts said he had been told at Home that the people there were going to demand that New Zealand should agree to a lower standard of living, but the workers of this 'country were going to resist any such action. “We elect our own Governments here,” said Air Roberts, “and we will not be dictated to by any financial institution, . . lhe workers have not been consulted, and the only thing left for us to do is to call the representatives of the workers together. We are meeting in conference on 10th'March.” “Although 1 am not making a threat, in my opinion, no union secretary' can do anything else but advise his men not to accept the reductions. If the workers do accept the reductions, they will simply be telling the people of New Zealand that they are willing to accept a lower standard* of living.”

PRIME MINISTER’S REPLY Mr Forbes said he realised that the workers regarded any reduction of salaries as a serious matter, but there were two sides to every question. In the first place, he desired to say definitely that there was no dictation from the money-lenders or from any outside country. The simple position was that the country’s accounts had been placed before him", as Minister of Finance, and. he. had to decide what steps should bo taken. He had found himself up against the solid economic fact that the income of the Dominion had been, reduced by £20,000,000, and it was absurd to say, in view of that, that the country could carry on in the same way. When one’s income was cut in half the first thing one had to do was to cut expenses. It would be a much more pleasant task for him, said the Prime Minister, to be able to say that there was work for everybody at wages, but since he had been Prime Minister the boot had been on the other loot, Ho had had to cut down expenses in every direction. He could not understand the deputation saying that his announcement had come as a bombshell, for the workers must have seen that a reduction would have to be brought about sooner or later.

“We are suffering from an economic crash,” said Mr Forbes, “and we are faced with the absolute necessity ot taking certain measures, however unpleasant they may be, to counter that crash.” The workers apparently did not consider that there would be a reduction in tlie cost of living, but lie believed that a reduction in wages would be reflected bv a drop in the cost of living, 'Mr Roberts: “That was not the case in 1921.”

WORSE THAN 1921 Mr Forbes: “The slump of 1921 was nothing as compared with the present depression. We all know the position of the sheepfarniers to-day. Take my own ease. Two years ago the sale of twenty bales of wool returned to me £SOO, but to-day it only returns £l2O. I believe that tiiis country can t stand up to the wages it lias been paving in the past.. You must know that high wages mean unemployment.” A voice: “Question.” Mr Forbes: “A man can only employ a certain number ot men under the present conditions. Take the sheepfarmer. .-vain. Itow is be going to pay his wav?” Mr M. T. Walsh: “The Unemploy-

ment Board is paying the way for him.” Air Forbes: “What- rubbish.” Air Walsh: “They are hiring out men at 15s a week.” Air Forbes: "Do you think that is going to make any difference? It is only a drop in the bucket. I have stated what I believe to be necessary in the interests of the country, and it is for Parliament lo say whether my proposals shall be adopted.” Air Roberts: “You have put forward some excellent propaganda.” Mr Forbes: “The Government is in a minority. If I was looking at the position from a political point of view, do you think I would have made such proposals? So far as the wages of the workers are concerned, that is a matter for the Arbitration Court, and I have no right to suggest anything to the Court. I regret that you have seen fit to take up such an attitude, because I believe my programme will be in the best interests of the workers in the long run. However, the matter is for Parliament to decide.” Air Roberts: “I hone they don’t adopt your programme. Mr Forbes: “That is for Parliament to say.”

RAILWAYMEN PROTEST PALMERSTON N., 19th February. The Palmerston North branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants has passed a resolution protesting against the proposed 10 per cent, cut on wages, on the ground that rnilwaymen, particularly those who are lower-paid, already have been penalised by a loss in night rates . and oilier conditions, which brought them to the minimum earning capacity. Further, from Ist February, many members had house rents increased as high as 180 per cent., thereby further penalising members.'