COST OF LIVING BONUS

Southland Times, Issue 19510, 9 May 1922, Page 5

COST OF LIVING BONUS

ARBITRATION COURTS DECISION REDUCTION OF 5/- A WEEK OPERATIVE FROM MAY 15. (Pm United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 8. The Arbitration Court completed its pronouncement regarding the cost of living bonus late to-night. The Court has decided to reduce the remuneration of adult males by five shillings a week, of adult females by half a crown, .'and of juniors by one shilling and sixpence. A general order operative from May 15 will be issued. The Court deals with the arguments adduced by both parties at the conference in Wellington, and holds that the employers’ arguments in support of a reduction of thirteen shillings are fallacious. Likewise it cannot uphold the workers’ opposition to any reduction in wages. The Court reviews at length the economic and financial conditions affecting trade and industry in New Zealand, and says that the fall in prices has been felt most severely by the farmer, while manufacturer, merchant, and retailer are in turn all affected by the position of the farmer. Practically the whole of the export trade is in the products of the soil, and to a very large extent, though not altogether, the purchasing power of the community depends upon that of the farmer. The general outlook for the manufacturing and building trades is similarly complicated by deliberate restriction of purchases now operating. The Court emphasises the necessity for improved efficiency in production, and says the truth must be grasped that the interests of employer and worker are identical in the matter 'of meeting competition. In order to meet competition and stimulate trade a reduction in production costs is essential. It would, the Court believes, be beneficial if wages were to drop ten shillings a week, but a reduction of that amount would involve a reduction below the cost of living level, which though it would probably be only temporary would nevertheless press hardly on a considerable section of the workers. The brightening of the outlook and improving efficiency are, in the Court’s opinion factors that it ought to regard as ) indicating that the situation is not so serilous as to justify a reduction in wages beyond the amount disclosed by the cost of living figures.