WAGES DISTRIBUTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18563, 22 November 1923, Page 10

WAGES DISTRIBUTION.

QUESTION OF

FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES.

READJUSTMENT ADVOCATED

-. The matter Of a more equitable distribution of wages to "confer greater benefits upon : the man with family and other responsibilities was the subject of some discission at the conference of the Associated: Chambers ;of Commerce yesterday.

The subject was introduced in : a remit submitted by the Auckland Chamber, that, in view of the fact that*, the statutory minimum wage was. based upon the ; as- • sumed requirements of a married man with two children or other dependants, and that the responsibilities of three-' fourths of the wage-earners were admittedly less than the scale adopted was designed to meet. Parliament' or the Arbi. tratiorr Court be urged to consider the possibility of relieving ; the community from the burden of such overpayment, thereby leaving a margin, to provide assistance for those with larger families. The president of the Associated Chambers, Mr. W. H. Hudson, in moving the adoption of. the remit, said the responsibilities of 73 per -cent." of the workers were less .v than the scale, 11 per cent, .wtre on a level with the scale, and 16 per cent, were over that margin. Many of the workers, therefore, were getting more than they needed, but there was no suggestion that the / employers should pay less than at present. The present rates could be retained if necessary, but they should see that those who were getting more than their responsibilities warranted did something to. help those who wore suffering under their present load. Mr. A. G. Lunn (Auckland) pointed out that wages were still high. He felt that New,, Zealand was going to meet stronger competition from overseas countries, and if they' did not look ahead many oKthe workers in this country would find themselves in the position of those in Great Britain., He would sooner see the boy with no responsibilities receiving a smaller wage, and the difference given to. the man with the larger responsibilities. ■ ''. ! . -> Mr. R. W. Waterhouse (Napier) raised his objection to : the proposal on the grounds mainly that it would tend to disturb the present harmony between employers and employees. His view was that they should not pay the single "man of ability a lower wage than that given to a man with responsibilities who might not be of equal value as a workman. Mr. Stronach Paterson, of Christchurch, said they must realise that the true basis of wages was the value •"tf thd work performed, and at present they were in trouble vas • a result of uhe Government adopting an artificial. basis. He moved an amendment urging the Government to consider the possibility of meeting the position by a reduction of income tax. exemption to wage-earners without dependants. '■ ' Mr. Hudson But the trouble is that most of the workers on the minimum wage are below tho income tax figure. _ Mr. Priterson: Well, reduce t'ie exemption to £100 if necessary. Mr. A Leigh Hunt (Wllington) said that young people with no family . had far too much money to spend, and the bad \ moral effect could be seen on all sides. If they could be made to pay in-, come tax they would feel that they" had a stale in the country, and the result would be beneficial. "i The point made by Mr. F. M. Hills. (Auckland) was that the conference need concern HfitU only with affirming the principle, and the method of employing it could be worked out later. .He also made it clear that there wss no suggestion that the employers would pay a penny less in wages. <r ■ - After some further discussion the remit, with the amendment suggested by. Mr. Stronach Paterson, was adopted.