COST OF LIVING

Southland Times, Issue 19511, 10 May 1922, Page 5

COST OF LIVING

REDUCTION OF THE BONUS ARBITRATION COURT’S PRONOUNCEMENT LABOUR OPINION DIVIDED. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 9. There is a divergence of opinion in Labour circles on the question of the Arbitration Court’s pronouncement with regard to reduction of the cost of living bonus. While some trades unionists are inclined to view the amount of the reduction as being reasonable, there are others who contend that the Court has inflicted an injustice on the general body of workers, as they consider any decline that may have taken place in the cost of living according to the Government Statistician’s figures is not appreciable to an extent justifying a lowering of wage? at the present time. In the course of conversation with a press representative the secretary of one large union which is part of the federation affiliated with the Alliance of Labour, pointed to the fact that the cost of living was a serious problem so far back as 1912. “So seriously was it regarded,” he said, “that the Government set up a Commission to inquire into the matter. The Commission brought down a report, but nothing waa done, and it was not upntil 1918 that the workers were given some protection by law against the ever-soaring prices of the necessaries of life. For the preceding six years the workers’ purchasing power had not been equal to the rising cost of living, and even with the granting of bonuses they have not been able to make up leeway. The workers have never enjoyed a fair standard of living, and that is where the injustice of the Court’s decision comes in. The worker should surely receive wages which would enable him as the head of a family to carry out his responsibilities in a manner proper for the well-being of the State, and he should be able to earn something more than will enable him to purchase the bare necessaries of life, but he is not able to do that. His wages are reduced according to a legal enactment, but there is no guarantee that the cost of living will be reduced in proportion. On the other hand there is evidence that the prices of some of the country’s primary products are going to go up. Beef is still down, although an improvement seems likely, but dairy produce, mutton, and wool appear to have better market prospects. Eggs are 3/- a dozen. Why, it’s monstrous. I don’t think all the workers will take these wages reductions lying down. Some of them may, but there are others who, I think, will cause trouble. However, it is not much good protesting. The question of wages is out of the hands of both employers and workers now. It is a matter of law, and until the law is altered the workers cannot expect to obtain what is their right.” “It is the first roll down the slippery incline,” was the way in which an official of a labour political organisation summed up the situation. “Many workers do not appear to realise that their wages are going back to the 1914 level. That is the intention. It has been so in the Old Country, where wages are even lower in some cases than they were in 1914. Economic conditions in the Old Country seem to provide our basis of working, and we always follow the Old Country.” A prominent trades union secretary expressed the view that the reductions decided upon by the Court were not unreasonable. At first- sight, he remarked, it would appear that the case put up by the labour representatives before the Arbitration Court sitting in Wellington was unanswerable, but when other factors and the depressed state of trade were taken into consideration it was only to be expected that some reduction in wages would be made. He thought that was how the general body of workers would look at the matter.

This official was also of opinion that the Judge of the Arbitration Court was averse to the standard of living of the workers going below the 1914 level “Industry,” he went on, “like all developments of life, is continually undergoing changes, is subject to evolution, and is rising to a greater state of perfection. On the average there is a greater output per capita of labour employed, and in accordance with the increase in output owing to evolution we say it is only reasonable to expect that the workers themselves should receive a commensurate improvement in their standard of life. Not only is this desirable from the workers’ standpoint per se, but it is also desirable viewed from the wider aspect of getting a better market for the increased product, as it is obvious that further fields must be found if more production goes on. Hence greater buying power must be given to the community generally ,which in effect means that as good wagee as possible are helpful to everybody, both to the worker who is enabled to live a much better life, and to the business man and the manufacturer whe will have wider avenues open for the disposal of their products. On the whole Ido not think the reduction made by the Court is unreasonable.”

Something in the nature of criticism of the workers’ representative on the Court (Mr M. J. Reardon) was made by a trades union secretary who opposes the Court's pronouncement. He expressed great surprise that the workers’ representative was apparently with the Judge of the Court as far as the decision was concerned, and that it was the representative of the employers who had protested. The general order of the Court giving effect to the reduction of the bonus takes effect as from May 15. Before the employers reduce wages, however, they have to give notice of their intention to do so. On the other hand, unions working under awards who wish to claim exemption from the order must apply to the Court. It is likely that numerous applications for exr emption will be filed. STRIKE OF SLAUGHTERMEN. CHRISTCHURCH, May 9. For a reason that is not clear, but is supposed to be in connection with the decision of the Arbitration Court concerning the bonus question, the butchers employed at the works of the North Canterbury Sheepfarmers’ Freezing Company at Kaiapoi stepped work shortly after 8 a.m. to-day.