WAGES INCREASE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21785, 15 October 1940, Page 4

WAGES INCREASE

Employees Of Borough Council Amendment Defeated On the recommendation of the Finance Committee, the Timaru Borough Council last night decided to grant an increase in wages of 5 per cent to all officers, but not so as to increase the salary of any one officer above £5OO. The greatest increase was limited to £l7/10/-. The increase will mean an additional annual cost to the Council of £1690, and for the remainder of the present financial year £1055. The committee’s recommendation met with some opposition when it came forward for consideration. Cr. J. S. Satterthwaite said that the Arbitration Court had made a general order increasing award wages by 5 per cent., and that had meant a heavy burden on employers. Some local bodies had acted one way and some another, but he did not think the Council should be guided by any decision. It should act on its own. There were many business houses in Timaru who found themselves in a serious position, having lost practically al] their business, and yet they were obliged to grant their employees who were under awards an additional 5 pei cent. He was of the opinion that 95 per cent, of the firms in the town had not granted any increase to those of their employees who were not undei awards. They, as councillors, were the directors of the affairs of the citizens, and it was not their duty to throw money away. He contended that if they granted an increase on salaries up to £312 that they would be doing a fair thing, and he moved as an amendment “That the 5 per cent, increase be granted on salaries up to £312. but with a maximum of £l3 a year, and that as regards salaries of more than £312 per annum, then the maximum increase of £l3 be reduced by £1 for every £3 of salary.” (No officer with a salary of over £351 would receive an increase). The amendment was sc bonded by Cr. J. R. Hart. “Poor Case for Equity” Cr. P. B. Foote said he thought it would be decidedly unfair to give the award men the increase and leave out the other men simply because they were not under an award. Cr. Satterthwaite had made out a good case for economy but a poor case for equity. The men most affected by the amendment were the Council’s key men, and he intended to see that they received justice. Cr. W. H. Hall supported the recommendation of the committee. He said the Council had to give the award men the increase, and in his view every member of the staff, including the executive officers, should receive an increase. Cr. H. J. Mathers considered that the initial mistake was in making the increase at all. The Government imposed a 5 per cent, tax and then gave the workers a five per cent, rise to help them pay for it. In his view the committee’s suggestion was the better one. Cr. M. H. Richards said that administration costs were mounting all the time, and if they continued to mount, the Council would have no money with which to carry on the essential works of the Borough. He would not favour any further increases while the war was on. Cr. A. S. Kinsman said that if Cr. Satterthwaite’s < utlook was that of the younger generation, then he congratulated him. As custodians of the public purse, it was wrong for them to grant a cost of living bonus. to people who were in a position to carry on, especially in view of the position of the business community. Cr. Satterthwaite’s proposals were equitable and would enable the Council to effect economy. “Entirely Wrong” Cr. Hart said he considered the increase to be entirely wrong, as it placed the whole burden on the shoulders of the employer. They were being asked to grant increases practically to the entire staff, and he was not prepared to support that. The Mayor said that the ground had been fully covered and he would say no more than that he intended to support the recommendation of the committee. Replying, Cr. Satterthwaite said that, excluding the cost to the Council under awards, his proposal would mean an extra yearly payment of £156/2/4, whereas the committee’s recommendation meant an additional £497/12/-. The amendment, on being put to the meeting, was defeated by five votes to four, the voting being:— For Councillors Satterthwaite, Hart, Richards and Kinsman. Against,—The Mayor and Councillors Hall, Mathers, Foote and Hawkey. The recommendatio. of the committee was carried.