STANDARD WAGE ARGUMENTS

Southland Times, Issue 23287, 25 August 1937, Page 6

STANDARD WAGE ARGUMENTS

Arbitration Court Hearing CASE FOR WORKERS OUTLINED ASPECTS OF NATIONAL INCOME DISCUSSED (United Press Association) AUCKLAND, August 24. When the hearing of the standard wage arguments was resumed in the Arbitration Court this morning Mr D. I. Macdonald, secretary of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, asked whether or not advocates might discuss the question of holidays. Mr Justice O’Regan said the court was not going to curtail discussion. If speakers referred to the question of holidays then the court did not propose to check them because it was difficult to keep strictly within the rules of relevancy. “Our invitation was to assist in making a pronouncement on wages and in making that pronouncement we will make no reference to holidays,” his Honour added. “However, if speakers have prepared what they are going to say we do not propose to interrupt them, at any rate, if they adhere reasonably to the limits of relevancy.” The third of the prepared statements submitted on behalf of workers was read by Mr P. M. Butler. He said the court stood in a unique position in the economic and social life of the nation for under its immediate jurisdiction were 90 per cent, of the producers of all the wealth of the nation and the court in the course of its duty was called upon to measure out to these producers the portion of the national income which was considered to be their due in relation to the services given. In making a decision in a case of the nature of that now before the court it was presumed the court would take cognizance of the general economic position of the country, the tendency of the improving or degenerating economic condition indicated by trade and business statistics and the equitable distribution of the national income. He discussed various aspects of the national income, increased factory production in recent years and the growth of building and construction. NOT IN PROPORTION “We strongly submit that the proportion of the national income measured out to producers in the form of wages is totally inadequate and unjust,” he added. While the aggregate wages and salary payments had increased with the national income they had not done so in proportion and the proportion would not be altered until the basis of distribution was altered by the court itself in departing from the conservative and orthodox methods adopted in the past in fixing wages. It was submitted that this should be done on the present occasion. A table showing that of 5451 workers employed in the building industry in 1935 a total of 1897 averaged from £1 to £4 a week was produced by Mr Butler. He said that buildings were a sure sign of progress and prosperity and had always been taken as an indication of the prosperity of New Zealand. The figures quoted showed that the building industry was again on the up-grade, but that the condition of the workers erecting them was completely out of proportion to the wealth and amenities provided. “We are not in this case suggesting any wages, he said. “We are endeavouring to state the facts of the case and to present a survey of conditions as they exist to this Court. We submit strongly that the wages fixed by the Court should be such as to return to the worker a fair share of the wealth which he has created and to ensure him and his family a decent standard of living in keeping with the prosperity of the nation.” An inquiry by the Government Statistician into the cost of living m Wellington city showed that for a man, his wife and three children between and 154 years, the weekly expenditure in February of this year was £5 2/9J, Mr Butler continued. This included 3/10J for employment promotion levy and tax. His Honour: It is a public scandal that any man who has nothing to live on but his labour should have to pay t£l Mr Butler said that the total mentioned allowed £1 6/3J a week for housing but it would be shown that the rents in Wellington for four and fiveroomed houses ranged from 35/- to £2 a week. Thus a bare subsistence level for any family of five required £5 5/a week but it was held that the Court should grant more than this and should make possible a decent standard of enjoyment. In addition the Court had to consider what additional amount it would grant each particular class for the time absorbed in learning a trade or profession, the unpleasantness of the work, the abnormal arduousness of the work, the dangerous nature of the work and other reasons. Payment on a weekly basis was advocated by Mr Butler. He also analysed returns showing that the time lost through wet weather and holidays without pay in the building trade resulted in a loss of from 16 to 17 per cent, of the men’s total earnings. Thus if the Court desired to allow an actual “povertyline” basis of £5 it would accordingly make the minimum under £5 15/-. Based on information supplied by representative trades, firms and merchants a table was submitted by Mr Butler showing the weekly cost of the barest essentials for the family of a man, his wife and three children. The items were:—Boot repairs 3/-, coal 4/-, rent (lowest) £1 10/-, meat 11/3, bread 5/-, vegetables and fruit 13/-, fish lOd, hospital and medical 4/-, groceries (dry only) £1 10/-, light 1/3, gas (heating and cooking) 4/-, milk and cream 3/1, making a total of £5 9/5 a week. No allowance was made for clothing, furniture, new boots, entertainments, beverages, sports bodies, rates, education, newspapers, laundry supplies, linen replacements, crockery replacements, books or library subscription, insurance, wireless, postages, railway or tram fares and many other items. Mr James Moulton, secretary of the New Zealand Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Industrial Association of Workers gave details of the average earnings of members of his organization. He said the average amount earned was less than the basic wage. THE EMPLOYERS’ VIEWPOINT INCREASED COSTS AND PRICES AUCKLAND, August 24. The view*that there was no justification for what he submitted was the

Arbitration Court’s present standard of wages being departed from was expressed by Mr D. I. Macdonald, secretary of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, in opening the employers’ case when the Arbitration Court continued its hearing of the standard wage arguments. Mr Justice O’Regan presided and with him were associated Mr W. Cecil Prime, employers’ member, and Mr A. L. Monteith, employees’ member. “In deference to the wishes of the court the New Zealand Employers’ Federation in conjunction with the Manufacturers’ Federation, the Farmers’ Union, the Sheep Owners’ Union and all groups of employers affiliated to the Employers’ Federation has decided to submit its representations through one advocate and one or two witnesses only will be called by me,” Mr Macdonald said. “The trend under recent legislation has been to extend the field of industry over which the court has direct influence,” he continued. “The effect of the pronouncement of the court following the present hearing will, therefore, be more widespread than has ever been the case in the past and the importance of the court fixing rates at levels appropriate to the economic condition of the country is therefore probably greater today than ever previously.” Various general wage movements which have taken place from time to time during the life of the court up to the 1925 pronouncement were traced by Mr Macdonald. He submitted that generally the court’s present standard rates were: Unskilled, 2/0.2d an hour, semi-skilled, 2/1.3d to 2/4.05d; skilled, 2/5.7. These rates were arrived at by equating the 1925 standard to the 40hour week from the 44-hour week. INCREASED COSTS The economic condition of the country was reviewed by Mr Macdonald. He submitted that at a time of rising prices, such as at present, it was all the more important that the court should weigh most seriously the ability of New Zealand’s industries to flourish under the increased costs. Wages increases could not fail to increase the costs of production and, in many cases, such increases were cumulative. Increased costs and prices must, in the end, result in reduced consumption followed by a falling-off in production and employment. The major cause of the rapid increase in unemployment in New Zealand from .1939 onwards, was undoubtedly the inability of industrialists, both primary and secondary, to get their internal costs adjusted to the reduced spending power which resulted from the fall in export prices. Any increase in internal costs in excess of the improvement in export prices at the present stage in New Zealand’s recovery from the depression could not fail to set back this recovery. Mr Macdonald held that the wages had risen considerably more than the retail and wholesale prices over last year, consequently the correct conclusion could be drawn that the position of the wage earner today was much better than it was 12 months ago. The latest statistics showed that the average of wage rates was now 64 per cent, higher than in 1914 but the cost of living was only 46.3 per cent higher. The cost of living at present indicated no necessity to increase the wage rates but rather the reverse. “I most definitely submit that the court would be making a serious error if it departed from its practice of many years of fixing its standard rates in accordance with the cost of living and the general economic condition of the industries of the country as a whole and not the economic position of a few of the more sheltered industries or groups of workers,” he went on. “I consider 4d to 5d an hour is ample margin to exist between the unskilled and skilled rate. In so far as any standard fixed by this court is concerned the court has to fix a general set of rates based on the major considerations of past standards, the cost of living and the general economic conditions. Any failure to act on these factors, particularly were the present tendency to recovery to be suddenly arrested, would only intensify the difficulties towards an adjustment in the future. The court has, in previous general pronouncements, recognized the necessity for declaring standard rates on an hourly basis. There seems to be no necessity for departing from this custom.”