WITH DISCRETION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 140, 16 June 1931, Page 10

WITH DISCRETION

“TEN PER CENT. “CUT” MANUFACTURERS’ VIEWS. A recommendation is to bo forwarded to members of the Wellington Manufacturers’ Association b-y the executive of the association that the 10 per cent, cut in wages should be used with all possible discretion, that where it is applied it should be passed ou to the public, and that members should devote more attention to a reduction in productive costs per labour unit than a reduction in money wages. A decision to this effect was reached at a meeting of tho executive recently, after a discussion in which some frank opinions were expressed regarding problems of the day. The matter came before the meeting as tho result of a communication from the Wellington Employers’ Association setting out in brief form the decision of the Arbitration Court on the subject of reduced wages. At the outset members expressed the view that the idea which seemed to be abroad that a 10 per cent, cut in wages would enable a JO per cent, reduction in the price of goods was an erroneous one. Wages were by no means the only item in the cost of production, it was stated. Mr. A. Seed said it was not suggested by the Employers’ Federation that it would be possible to pass all the 10 per cent, on; in fact, it was known definitely that it would bo absurd to suggest that. What the federation was anxious about was to see that the advantage ol a reduction was passed ou to the pub lie. Dangerous Suggestion. The chairman (Mr. J. T. Spears) said that many of the suggestions about passing on the 10 per cent, cut were sentimental, and were dangerous and misleading. Many traders and manufacturers, owing to the period of stress, had cut their prices, and what was being conceded now would only' have the effect of lessening tho losses those people were incurring. The opinion was expressed by Mr. J. P. Luke that they could go no further than suggest that as far as possible the savings should bo passed on. Mr. Spears: “It has been legally decreed that a manufacturer has no say in the retail price of his goods.” Mr. Luke: “Where it bi possible to pass it on we will do so, but no one can be tied down by any resolution. It is % matter for individual employers.” Mr. J. G. Marshall said that the public should get the advantage of reduced wages, otherwise the public would suffer.

Mr. Spears: “It is a question of determining how prices will come down otherwise than through the law of supply and demand.” Mr. Marshall: “There is a bigger chance of getting prices down by getting a greater degree of service from the workmen.” Less Money, Less Work. Mr. J. H. Whittaker said there was one unfortunate aspect of the matter, and that was that there were some workers—he did not say there were many —who were not gDing to work so hard as usual for less money. If that policy were carried out by many of the men it would not be long before they would be faced with another 10 per cent. cut. Mr. Spears agreed. “After all is said and done,” he continued, “I am not an advocate of wage reduction. Money wages are not a material factor; it is production wages that matter. If lower wages are going to mean a smaller output, then we are not going to be any better off.” Mr. Whittaker said an endeavour should be made by the executive to formulate a policy for members generally. It might be said that they all knew their own business, but at the same time he thought a lead should be given. It might be possible to avoid reducing the wages of married folk. At the present time there were a number of young people who were getting too much money, and did not know how to use it. Replying to a question, Mr. Spears Raid that the Manufacturers’ Federation had considered the matter, and had made it plain that it placed no material value on money wage reductions. The federation felt that more attention should be centred on a reduction of the costs of production. He felt that the Employers’ Federation had taken the wrong line, and should have concentrated on removing some of the restrictions imposed by awards. For instance, it was farcical that they should have to pay from 50 to 100 per cent, extra for overtime. Employers To Blame. Mr. Seed said his experience went to show that in 99 cases out of 100 the employers were to blame for the restrictions that were imposed on them, for the simple reason that they did not take sufficient interest in their own affairs. “The employers have been too prosperous and too indifferent to watch their own interests,” he said. Mr. Spears: “You have hit the nail on the head. Times have been too easy. ” Mr. Luke did not agree that Arbitration Court restrictions were the main cause of the trouble; wages were the main trouble. Mr. Marshall: “Is it not a fact that everything has been costing too much by reason of the fact that men have been taking twice as long to do a job as they ought to have done? Men have not been giving a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. ’ ’ Mr. Spears said that the craft unions were very powerful. When times were prosperous the demand for labour was greater than the supply, and the unions could dictate their own terms. Mr. Seed: 4 ‘That is what the trader does. The worker is no different from the trader.” Mr. Luke: “We are all the same. It is no use burkeing it.” After further discussion, it was decided that the chairman should prepare a communication to members recommending that the 10 per cent, cut should be used with all possible discretion, that where used it should be passed on to the public, and that greater atten tion should be paid to reducing produc tive costs than to reducing money wages.