LIVELY DEBATE OVER WAGES CUT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 184, 5 August 1931, Page 7

LIVELY DEBATE OVER WAGES CUT.

HARBOUR BOARD MAKES TEN PER CENT DECREASE A lively debate lasting over an hour was staged by the Lyttelton Harbour Board to-day on the question of a 10 per cent reduction in the wages of those members of its staff who were governed by Arbitration Court awards. The main opponent to the proposed reduction was Mr E. J. Howard, M.P., who challenged the manner in which the question had come before the board. He declared that he was willing to hold up the wcA of the board for a month if by so doing he could prevent the reduction, the benefit of which, he said, would go mainly to foreign shipping companies instead of to the farmers of the province. The board decided to make a 10 per cent reduction. Messrs E. T. Howard, M.P., 11. T. Armstrong. M.P., F. E. Sutton and W. T. Lester voted against the motion. An amendment that a 5 per cent reduction be imposed was lost by eight votes to five. Following the board's decision, a motion was passed asking the Finance Committee to bring down proposals for disposal of the sum of approximately £4OOO saved bv the reduction in wages. Members stated during the discussion that the money should not go into the coffers of shipping companies but rather into the pockets of farmers. The money should be used for providing more work. Why in Committee? The debate started when the chairman, in referring to a report, said that the board would go into committee. M r II owa rd: Wh v ? The chairman; You know as ''Gil as I can tell you. When a question of finance is dealt with the board always goes into committee. Mr Howard said that he was going to object to the chairman's ruling. The matter of reduction of workers’ salaries was of public interest. He trusted that the board would face the situation and not be afraid of the Press and the public. It was agreed to take the report clause by clause. The clause dealing with the proposed reductions was taken in open meeting. “ Not Rightly Before Board.” Mr Howard raised a point of order that the question was not rightly before the in that it had not been brought forward in the constitutional way. It might be for the speaker to ask for an injunction restraining the board from breaking its own by-laws. The matter had been brought before the board by a foreign body. It might be said that the board was connected with the Employers’ Association, which had no right to initiate legislation for the board. Such business required notice of motion. The board might get a letter from the Trades and Labour Council or the Women’s Christian Temperance Union initiating legislation for the board. That would be an unconstitutional way of introducing legislation, upon which point members could obtain a rulinc from the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Any matter, unless introduced by notice of motion, could not be referred to a committee. The board was not a member of the Employers’ Association.

“Indecent Haste.” Mr H. T. Armstrong, M.P., stated that the letter went straight from the Employers’ Association to the Harbour Improvement Committee. There was such an indecent haste in getting on with the job that the matter had not come before the board. The committee could deal with only those matters referred to it by the board. The secretary reported that the chairman of the committee had brought the matter forward informally and had asked for an expression of opinion. Mr F. Horrell: Has the board received a communication from the Government recommending the 10 per cent cut? The secretary: No. Mr Howard: The Hospital Board has, for it handles Government money. An argument arose between Messrs Howard and H. Holland, M.P., reHoward and H. Holland, reend of which Mr Horrell declared that Mr Howard was raising a quibble. Chairman’s Ruling Challenged. When the chairman ruled that the matter was properly before the board, Mr Ho-ward moved that the ruling be disagreed with. The motion was lost, the mover and Mr Armstrong being the only ones voting in favour. Mr IT. M. Chrystall declared that there had been indecent delay ratherthan indecent haste in bringing the matter forward. Primary products had fallen by over 30 per cent. •The chairman, m repjv to Mr Howard, said that his allowance would participate in ihe 10 per cent cut. “ And a good idea, too,” remarked Mr Howard. If the reduction were made the l>oards emplovees would be paid lower ihan in Auckland and Dunedin, said Mr -Armstrong. This “ mad craze ” for wage reduction would have a bad effect on the country. Since the 10 per cent rut. business had been paralysed from one end of New Zealand to the other. Business men were in a position more serious than before, and the effects of the reductions would become increasing!'.- worse. In the case of a man getting £4 or £3 weekly, a 10 per cent reduction would mean a 20 per cent reduction in purchasing power, as half of the man’s wages was used for house rent and other commitments. Who Would Benefit? Who would benefit by the reduction.' Mr Armstrong asked. The board had given to shipping companies 1 £15.000 in a reduction of port charges, ! and not one penny ol that amount had : been passed on to the public. The saving went into the pockets of shareholden of the companies. The board, which was one of the wealthiest for its size in the Dominion, did not need to reduce wages to balance its budget. If the Government and some local bodies had so mismanaged their businesses as to have to reduce wages to balance budgets, there was no reason why the board should follow suit. Thousands of employers had refused to reduce It no decrease were made the board would have to reduce its staff, stated .Air F. Horrell. Mr Howard: We are taking £4OOO out of the workers to benefit foreign shipping companies. The Tories of this Dominion have ruled that this deed be done, and no outside body should dictate the policy of this board. It is a kind of religion with employers to reduce wages. “ Is it not a fact that the army of unemployed has increased since the cut? ” asked Mr Armstrong. “Are not our farmers worse off than before, because of the failing purchasing power of the people? Did not history prove that? ” The motion asking the Finance Committee to prepare a report as to the disposal of the £4OOO was carried unanimously. It was stated that the board' should not put the money into its coffers but should use it for provision of more work or make a direct contribution to unemployment funds.