THE WAGE STANDARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 3996, 14 October 1930, Page 67

THE WAGE STANDARD.

PROPOSAL FOR REDUCTION.

LABOUR DEPUTATION’S PROTEST. WELLINGTON, October 8.

Protesting against any proposal to reduce wages, a deputation representative of all sections of the Labour movement, waited on the Acting-Prime Minister (Mr E. A. Ransom) and the Minister of Labour (Mr S. G. Smith) to-day. It was contended that wages should rather be increased than reduced in order to improve the purchasing power of the people and to bring about a greater consumption of locally-manufactured goods. It was also urged that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the cost of living. “ A fortnight ago a deputation representative of the commercial and employer interests waited on you and urged you to introduce legislation this session to legalise the repudiation of all awards and agreements at present operating in industry,” said Mr W. Bromley, president of the _ Wellington Trades and Labour Council. “ At the same time the deputation affirmed its belief in the principle of compulsory conciliation and arbitration. It is an open secret that in 1928 these same people were opposing the arbitration system, and, failing to destroy the system then, they now make suggestions which, if acted upon, would effect that which they failed to effect in 1928. No more sure method of destroying the workers’ confidence in the court could be conceived than that suggested by the employers. The basis of their case was the drop in the world prices of our primary products, and the consequent difficulties occasioned for industry generally, and the small farmer in particular. If the repudiation of the awards, as suggested by the employers, would bring back the high prices ruling a few years ago for our marketable products,

or offer any solution of the trade depression which is afflicting this country in common with other countries it might be worth consideration. We are convinced, however, that such a procedure, contrary to bringing relief, would intensify and aggravate the present difficult situation. After stating the deputation’s case at some length, Mr Bromley summarised his points as follows:— 1. For the Government to pass legislation to legalise the repudiation of awards would destroy the confidence of the workers in the Arbitration Court. It _ would not build up a very popular opinion of the Government, and would certainly not be very materially to the advantage of those farmers and manufacturers who are in difficulties. 2. The great need to-day is for an increased power of consumption, which can only be brought about by a more equitable distribution of the national income. 3. As a first aid to an improvement of the position the Government, contrary to providing facilities for the wholesale reduction of wages as suggested by the employers, should set up the commission promised to go into the question of a living wage and might consider making the basic wage determinable by a matter of law. 4. The Government should conduct an inquiry to ascertain to what extent overcapitalisation has taken place and what proportion of the national income at the present time is meeting interest charges on idle capital and capital which exists m name only, 5. We assert that any downward trend in the wages of the workers, instead of improving the position, would only intensify and aggravate the present difficulties. The secretary of the Auckland Trades and Labour Council (Mr J. Purtell) said I that one of the leading economists in Auckland had told him that he considered that the request of the employers was an impudent one. A reduction of wages would mean further unemployment, as the

purchasing power of the people would be reduced, and he was given to understand that the manufacturers in Auckland were not in favour of the employers’ requests. Mr A. M'Laglen, secretary of the United Mine Workers, said that if the Government did not grant the request oi the deputation the matter would not be allowed to rest there. “ We will not consent to wage reductions, even if the Government makes them legal,” he said. “ We will fight them to the last ditch.” The Minister of Labour said that the matter was entirely one for the Cabinet, and he_ did not propose to say what his own views were on the subject. As a member of the Government he would be glad to go fully into the representations which had been made, and he was hopeful that before long Mr Ransom would be in a position to announce the decision of the Government. The Acting Prime Minister said that he was afraid that there was an impression in the minds of some of the workers that members of the Government were not sympathetic towards them, and were anxious to reduce their standards, but that was far from being the case. The Government was just as desirous as anyone else to reach a solution of the problem, although it might not view the problem through the same spectacles as the members of the deputation. Referring to the case made out by the deputation that increased wages would mean increased consumption, Mr Ransom said that as a primary producer he was not at all in favour of reducing wages. A low standard of living was one of the worst enemies of the producer, particularly when there was a low standard in Great Britain, which was the principal market for the Dominion. Apart from those who were unemployed, he did not suppose there were many workers in the ■ Dominion who were going without the : necessities of life. Mr Ransom said that he quite agreed that over-capitalisation and high interest charges was one of the greatest problems they had to face, but it was very difficult

to see how the Government was going ta set about dealing with the problem of over-capitalisation. In conclusion, Mr Ransom said that he regretted that a member of the deputation had seen fit to make a threat of action in the industrial field if the request of the deputation was not granted. At such a deputation they did not want threats. What was desired was a spirit of conciliation.