The Waipa Post. Published on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1922. WAGES BASED ON EFFICIENCY.

Waipa Post, Volume XX, Issue 1241, 11 May 1922, Page 4

The Waipa Post. Published on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. THURSDAY, MAY 11, 1922. WAGES BASED ON EFFICIENCY.

THE Arbitration Court has presented the workers of New Zealand with a new charter. Its decision on the cost-of-living bonus is more than a mere pronouncement on a transitory economic problem; it is epochal. Exercising the wider scope and the important and far-reaching functions conferred upon it by last year’s amendment to its constitution, the Court has translated into administrative reality the perfectly sound and justifiable maxim that every man and woman shall be entitled to “ a fair standard of living.” It is here that the paramount importance of its decree becomes manifest. It has distinguished the difference as between the “cost, of living” and“a fair standard of living.” while the Court recognises that money wages should be reduced, it states that a reduction below the five shillings ordered \yould trench on the maintenance of a fair standard of living. It ignores the prevailing economic conditions which justify a further reduction; it admits that it would be beneficial to trade and industry if wages were to drop ten shillings a week, but “ this would make the drop below the cost of living level, which would press heavily on a considerable section of the workers.” This must be interpreted as a frank attempt by the Court to maintain wages above the economic 'level. It seems opposed to all canons of political economy, and just how exactly it will operate the lapse of time alone will demonstrate. The Court itself appears to entertain some misgivings,’ for, as a result of the manner in which it has applied itself to this perplexing and important problem, it has produced a series of deductions the potency of which admit of no contradiction and the value of which will be apparent to all who give the question that serious thought which its gravity warrants. It emphasises a truth when it remarks that “ the opportunity for obtaining substantially high wages and better conditions than those provided by the awards of the Court do not now exist.” For, with unemployment increasing instead of waning, it is conceivable that the minimum rates prescribed by the Court are equivalent to the maximum obtainable in any industry. That is only the logical corollary to a period of unemployment. Therefore, to maintain wages at the level ordained, the Court has directed attention to certain conditions the creation of which it regards as essential if in-

dustry is to be maintained upon a sure and substantial foundation. Not once, but many times in its voluminous judgment, it emphasises the need for greater efficiency and more production. And in directing attention thereto it has touched the we£?k spots in our industrial life. Firstly, we have thrust home to us the truth which neither party has assimilated —the fact that the interests of employer and employee are identical. Wages and profits come from the one source, and if that fails both parties suffer. “ Inefficiency in production,” runs a paragraph in the decision, “ in one set of trades increases the cost of living to all workers in all trades, for the workers in e'acli trade are purchasers of the products of the other trades, and every worker who does' not give his best to his work is holding back a reduction in his own cost of living and in that of other workers.” Yet despite the accuracy of this observation, we have some workers adopting a laissez faire attitude, with a subtlety which is as remarkable as it is devoid of common honesty. For anything in the nature of “ go slow ” is not only industrially immoral, but dishonest as well. There can be only, a diminution in efficiency and decrease in production if “go slow ” methods are persisted in. The Court does not disguise the position, for it plainly warns the workers that “ if pre-war efficiency cannot be reached and maintained a greater reduction in wages will be required, in order to prevent foreign competition from overwhelming our local industries and ruining employers and workers alike.” The Court even goes further in stressing the point by denoting the methods by which the goal sought can be attained :

On the part of the employer, efficiency can be increased by improved methods of manufacturing and selling, by the adoption of up-to-date machinery and plant, the institution of proper costing systems,’ and the maintenance of close supervision. On the part of the worker, improved efficiency man , be maintained by giving his whole ' attenion and energy to the work attention and energy to the work in hand, by improving his knowledge and skill, and by the realisation that inefficiency, in these days of keen foreign competition, spells increased cost of production, and, consequently, a diminished return for employer and worker alike.

The obligation on the part of the employer and employed is there clearly stated. ' Efficiency must be the practised watchword if production is to be Increased, and the cost of articles thereby reduced. This is imperative for the sake'of both the local market and overseas trade; in other words, we must produce more goods and produce them more cheaply, so as to enable our customers to buy more than before, and at a lower price, and we in our turn will benefit by the increased sales to a greater extent than we will suffer by; the reduced price. The Arbitration iCourt &as actually placed the worker on trial. It has given him a wage which it regards as above the economic level and to maintain which greater efficiency and increased production must be exhibited by the workers. It now remains for the worker to prove his good faith by fulfilling the terms of the contract, for we are striving to depart from the established principle that the standard of living shall be governed by the prevailing economic conditions. How far we shall succeed rests very largely with the wage-earners themselves.