BASIC WAGE NOT EARNED

Southland Times, Issue 23152, 19 March 1937, Page 5

BASIC WAGE NOT EARNED

Interruption Of Work PAYMENT BY THE HOUR SUGGESTED (United Press .dissociation) WELLINGTON, March 18. The plight of intermittent workers whose rates of pay do not enable them to earn the basic wage, was the subject of comment today by the Minister of Labour (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong), who suggested that the difficulty might be overcome if an hourly basis of remuneration, similar to’that applying to waterside workers, was fixed. “Representations have been made to me from time to time from all parts of the Dominion about the earnings of intermittent workers, particularly builders and other classes of labourers,” said Mr Armstrong. “The figures supplied to me show that the average weekly earnings’of these workers are considerably less than the basic wage—£3 16/a week—the low rate of earnings being due to the loss of time because of wet weather, lack of continuity of employment and other causes. It was the intention of the legislature, when the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act 1936 was enacted, that the basic rate of wages for adult male workers should be such a rate as would be sufficient to enable the recipient to maintain a wife and three children in a fair and reasonable standard of comfort? It was thought, at the time, that an hourly basic rate would have been fixed which would have had regard to the earning power of intermittent workers. However, the only basic wage fixed was a weekly one, possibly because no representations were made to the court for the fixation of any other basic wage than a weekly one. Power is contained in the Act for the general order to be amended in not less than six months, and it will, therefore, shortly be possible for the workers in question to ask the court to declare an hourly basic wage. Waterside workers, who are paid on an hourly basis, always received a considerably higher hourly rate than the average unskilled worker because of the intermittency of their employment, and it appears to me that there is no reason why other workers engaged in irregular employment should not receive similar consideration ”