COST OF LIVING

Southland Times, Issue 19512, 11 May 1922, Page 5

COST OF LIVING

REDUCTION OF BONUS ARBITRATION COURT’S ORDER THE EXCEPTIONS (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 10. An order amending the awards and industrial agreement, now in force in the Dominion in terms of the decision of May 8 to reduce the cost of living bonus has been made by the Arbitration Court. The order provides that all time rates of remuneration, whether payable as basic wtgee only or as baric wages with bonus or bonuAs, with the exception of those oxcludea by the Court shall be reduced as follows: per m. per w'k per d’y per hr. £.O d. £.s.d. £.s.d. L.ad. Adult male 1i 6 5 0 10 H workers. Adule Fe- 10 10 2 6 5 I male workers. Juniors 6 6 1 6 3 i Workers employed in theatres and other places of entertainment who are paid at performance rates, 6d {W performance. All piecework (inclusive of bonuses if any) shall continue in force, for the purpose of calculating the earnings of workers, but the earnings of each worker shall be reducible in respect of the time actually worked by him or her in each week by an amount calculated at the rate of 5s per week in the case of males, and 2s 6d per week in the case of females. The foregoing conditions shall not operate in respect of the following awards and industrial agreements:—Green Island coal mines award, Kaitangata coal mines award, Waronui and Taratu coal mines award, Nightcaps and Wairio and Waaraki districts coal mines award, Shag Point coal mines award, Scotland coal mmes award Northern industrial district ooal mines award, Point Elizabeth and Leverpool State coal mines industrial agreement. Mount Torhesse coal mines industrial agreement, Nangahua gold mines industrial agree meent, Northern industrial agreement (except Gisborne judicial district) aerated water and cordial factories employee*’ award, New Zealand seamen’s and firemens industrial agreement. In a memorandum the Court states that it has specifically excluded from its operation a number of awards and industrial agreements the provisions of which indicate that a special mode of adjustment had been agreed on by the parties or ordered by the Court. The Court proposes to file a number of orders for partial exclusion which will cover cases in which past bonuses have been withald wholly or in part. Aj>plications from several unions in respect of other awards and industrial agreements have been considered, but the Court has decided not to deal with these ex parte. The unions concerned may make formal application for exclusion, but the Court desires to point out that the fact that award rates in sone trades are higher in one district than in another is not a ground for making an order for exclusion in regard to the latter district. Any anomaly will be considered when the new award becomes due. In the ease of workers paid at hourly rates, but whoee conditions of work are special and who regularly earn extra money, such as tramway employees, the Court has on more than one occasion held that the so-called Gisborne pronouncement does not apply. FREEZING WORKERS TO APPEAL. SPECIAL GTROUMSTANCE&. CHRISTCHURCH, M«y W. Mr F G. Ellis, secretary of the Canterbury Freezing Workers’ Union, stated today that the freezing workers intended to appeal against the Arbitration Court's reduction of five shillings in the bonus. This appeal was in accordance with the right given them by the Aibiiratiou Amendment Act of last session, on the ground that special circumstances placed them on different footing from other trades. These “special circumstances* were, (a) That the present freezing season was a short one and that the earnings of the average worker therein would be betow the normal; (bl That workers in the industry had not had the benefit of the Court’s stabilisation scheme inasmuch as their wages had been reduced by an award of the Court in December last. ARBITRATION COURTS ANNOUNCEMENT. OPINION AT DUNEDIN. DUNEDIN, May 10. Dunedin employers agree that the bonus cut. is too small and ineffective because it does not warrant, a decrease in selling prices. The upshot is likely to Lie a decrease in the number of hands and certainly taking 5/- a week from the men's wages without the equivalent in the purchasing power of money. Employers rtjckonsd on at. least an 11/- cut. A workers’ representative stated that labour disagrees with the decision becaure the Court states that the cost of living is 67 per cent, greater than in 1914, while the general average wage increase is only 54 to 56 per cent. The decision seems prejudiced. This representative averred that political influences seemed to have influeneed the decirion. A MANUFACTURER’S VIEWS (Special to the Times.) CHRISTCHURCH, May ». Mr J. A. Frastick, the well knows Christchurch manufacturer, when asked for his opinion of the Court’s pronouncement* said: ‘To critise a decision of the Court of Arbitration without being in possession of the information upon which its judgment was founded, appears to lie nsky, but it would appear to the casual observer that if the advances in wages were baaed upon the increased cost of living then the amount that has been authorised to be deducted seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the reduced cost of commodities. My difficulty in arriving at a judgment is that I can only claim some knowledge with regard to wholesale prices. I have no means of forming any judgment in respect to retail prices, except the individual’s experience of his household, but whether the amount truly represents the decrease in the cost of living is not so material as the need for efficiency. We are clamouring for reduction of hours, and much can be said in favour of it, but we are also demanding high wages for work more or less leisurely performed. That applies not only to the workmen, but to those in authority also. We are not cultivating the habit as Americans do of the principals working the same number of hours as their subordinates. We have to study these points, otherwise the cost of production cannot be reduced very much, if at all, below the present rates. The difficulties do not, however, begin and end with the cost of production. Die public have been brought up extravagantly. They demand the most expensive services from distributor, and if people would only think that dl this has to be paid for and must be included in the price they would be far less exacting in their demands. I do not feel inclined to quibble at the decision of the Court, but I do urge upon the workers. and the employers and the public each to d*» their part, so that we may have the ccirmoditiec we need at the lowest possible prices consistent with reasonable reward for every service rendered.”