THE BASIC WAGE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 109, 9 May 1936, Page 10

THE BASIC WAGE

METHOD OF FIXATION HOURLY AND DAILY BASIS DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE I Per Press Association. ] WELLINGTON, May S. An amendment proposed by the Hon. A. Hamilton (National, Wallace) that the basic wage should be fixed on an hourly and daily basis, as well as on a weekly basis, was accepted by the Minister of Labour (the ll.on_ 11. T. Armstrong) during the Committee discussion on the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives this morning. The Minister undertook to draft tue necessary provision. Mr. K. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) suggested that sufficient time should be allowed between the passing of the measure and its cwning into operation, especially as far as the basic wage was concerned, so that contracts in force would not be affected. Mr. W. .1. Polson (Independent, Sirattordj said that the Bill did not give equal rights to both sides. Compulsion was placed entirely upon the whereas there were many loopholes for employees. Penalties for breaches of the Court's awards were not effective against unions, whereas they were effective against employers. Mr. H. S. S. Kyle (Opposition, Kic carton) instanced the case of the freezing works employees. He said ’bat on the statutory holidays, numbering about eight a year, it might happen that the men on those days would have to be paid triple rates, ind a conservative estimate of the cost would be £30,000 to £50,990 a year if the Bill went through. On these days if the men were required to work, perhaps to enable a cargo to be prepared for shipping, they would be paid double time for working and also- for the holiday. If that was not the position, he hoped that the Minister would say so, as he was assured on the best authority that it was so. The Kt. Hon. J. G. Coates (Opposition, Kaipara) said that the assurances of Ministers were not enough. It was what was written in the Bill that counted. He stressed the value of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. He went through the Bill showing the amendments and new clauses that had been added by the committee, which, Mr. Coates thought, had honestly tried to rectify many of the weaknesses that existed, but it was not going to be a bed of roses.

Collective Bargaining The Hon. R. Semple (Government, Wellington East) defended the establishment of New Zealand unions. He said that the Dominion had reached the point of development when it was desirable that “calf’ unions shout I disappear. He hoped to see agreements arrived at by means of collective bargaining and pot forced bargaining. He said that there was no provision in the 811 for freezing workers to be paid triple rates. Aii that, the freezing workers would le eeive would be determined round the Table through conciliation, or by the Judge, based on the evidence. To talk as Mr. Kyle had talked was bunkum. Mr. Semple added that a multiplicity of unions in industry was not conducive to the best interest of the country. Mr. James Hargest (Opposition. Awaruay thought that the Bill would raise the costs and also reduce the volume of work, especially in country districts. He said that it would have an adverse effect on the volume of production of primary industries. He could not sec how the farmers could have a 40-hour week and compete with other countries. The Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes (Leader af the Opposition) said that members • f unions should have some protection as to what levy could be imposed on them. He did not think that such rigid conditions should be imposed on employers as were contained in the Bill. Union Levies The Hun. H. T. Armstrong sail that unions would not be levied for more than it took for the actual running of the unions. All members of a union had a vote, and although to-day the unions had a right to levy up to a shilling he knew of no union that had ever reached that maximum. Mr. Forbes: Then why make the sky the limit? Mr. Armstrong said that there might ?e special case-* where it might be desirable to make a higher lew if a substantial majority of members wished to do so. The general run was sixpence for men and threepence for women. The Hon. F. Langstone (Government, Waimarino-: What do the employers charge for their union? Mr. H. Dickie (Opposition, Batea*: Not a shilling a week. Mr. Armstrong: I think it is based on turnox er. Opposition voices: No, no. You have it all wrong. Mr. Coates asked what would happen if a member of a union refused to pay. Mr. Armstrong said that he simply •efused to pay, that was all. Much depended on the rules of the union.

Mr. W. J, Polson: He can’t get another job. Mr. Armstrong said that some guilds perhaps had sick payments or provided some such benefit, and might desire to levy more than a shilling. Mr. Armstrong said that his desire was to prevent the minority dominating the majority in a union. In amending the Bill to provide that a New Zealand union could not be formed unless four unions in the eight industrial districts applied for it he was considering making some provision to cover those affected, such as contractors, by increased costs due io the passing of the Bill, but the lavv draughtsmen had informed him that the Bill not not the place to do it and it could K be done in the Finance Bill at a later stage. Mr. S. G. Smith (Opposition, New Plymouth) asked the Minister to leave the law as it stood regarding subscriptions. Mr. Wright thanked the Minister for making provision for those who had conscientious objections to joining unions where businesses were not run for pecuniary gain, but he thought that the exemption should go further and provide for those who were engaged in other occupations but whose religious beliefs debarred them from joining a union. He d : d not suggest that they should be exempted from paving their levies, and did not think these men desired that. The short title was passed on the voices. A division was called on Clause 2 covering the extension of the te-rn •‘industrial matters” as set out in the principal Act and as judicially construed. but the clause was retained by 50 votes to 19. Basic Wage On Clause three the Hon. A. Hamilton (Opposition. Wallace) moved an amendment to provide that the basic wage should be fixed on an hourly as well as a weekly basis. He said that the clause seemed to suggest a weekly rate, but the employer should not be compelled to pay a weekly wage for perhaps a day or two’s work. Mr. Armstrong said that the basic wage was the irreducible minimum, but the rest he thought could be safely left to the good sense of the Court. He had no serious objection to the amendment but thought it was unnecessary because the Court could, as the clause read now, fix an hourly or a weekly rate. He suggested that the clause should be postponed till later in the day, and this was agreed to. An amendment to Clause four by the Minister, regarding the registration of unions where an existing union was already in existence, was carried. An amendment by the Minister limiting applications for Dominion registration to unions which are fairly well established throughout the Dominion was carried. At this stage the luncheon adjournment was taken. When the House resumed at 2.30 p.m. the Committee Mages of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill were continued. An amendment by Mr Polson to Clause 6 providing that a New Zealand award could be registered only when a majority of workers and employers approved, was lost on the voices. Coming to Clause 11, Mi Polson moved an amendment the effect of which he said was to prevent hole and corner agreements being entered into in places where a majority of the workers were engaged. This was Lost after a , division by 49 votes to 7. Clause 12 was challenged but was retained by 51 votes to 14. On the next clause, that of restoring to the Arbitration Court its former jurisdiction in relation to industrial disputes. Mr Coates contended that had the present provision of compulsory conciliation and optiona! arbitration

been allowed to continue a little longer, it would have proved more acceptable to both employers and employees. Mr Forbes said penalties were provided against employers but not against employees. Mr Armstrong said that in the past few years disputes could go to the Court only if the employers approved. ’l’he present clause restored the right both the employers and employees had prior to 1932. At the present time in some eases it was the employee who was refusing to go to the Arbitration Court. Control of Big Unions Mr W. A. Bodkin (Opp., Central Otago) said the Bill did nut give any complete control over the big unions. He suggested that the same provisions that were in some Australian statutes providing fur the Cancellation of the registration of unions should be included in the Bill. If that were done the Opposition would withdraw its opposition to the clause. Mr Armstrong .said he did not know whetiher the members of the Opposition were serious in trying to improve the Bill or talking just for the sake of talking. He proceeded to read a clause in the original Act of 1925 which was not being repealed by the present Bill providing for the suspension of unions when convicted of certain offences. The Minister said the Government believed the piovision was necessary and did not intend to repeal it. ‘The Government did nut intend to allow workers on one side or employers on the other to flcut the law because it had been done in the past. There was no reason why the present Government should shut their eyes to what was happening. That was tl*e wav he proposed to administer the department while he was in charge of it. Mr Hamilton: That's the stuff. Mr Armstrong: If the workers want to take another course let them get out of the Arbitration Court, altogether and they will have to put un v.i*.h the consequences. Mr Armstrong said that Opposition •nenibens said there was provision in the law of Australia for cancellation of registration of unions. The late Minister had had it in his own law. Mr Hamilton; Will you put *n the same clause as Australia? Mr Armstrong: It is there. Mr Hamilton: It L, not there. Mr Armstrong said that in Australia the union had to be and once convicted the union could be cancelled. That was the New Zealand law. Mr Hamilton: You can never get cancellation here. Mr Armstrong: There never was a body- of workers brought before the Court in New Zealand wlio weie not cunviviel and penal t?s mi posed, and if the Court Las not seen fit io vuu’cl the registration that does r-oi alter die fact that the Court has the power to Jo it just as in Austral a. I seriously suggest to the members of b he Opposition that they should itrdy the law they have been responsible for. The difference between the law at the present time and the Bill between the Hou'P is that the Minister has been responsible for this one but o'lt-side influences have been responsible for the

Bills the Opposition fostered and they did not understand them, but ■were simply carrying out instructions from powers outside and are absolutely ignorant to-day of the powers u« their own Bills. Air Bodkin said ;Le Aliniiter did not seem to know the difterjnee between cancellatio-n and .su-,peu.-ion. It was never suggested that there was no power to suspend unions. If the Minister would amend the woju suspend and give power to cancel, it would alter the whole position. Mr Armstrong: Tell us what the difference is. Air Bodkin: If a union is suspended it is still in existence. Air Armstrong: .If you cancel the .registration it is still in existence. I Air Bodkin: If a union is suspended for a time that does not admit the employment of others. The only people 'an employer can give employment to are members of a union. What we desire, and the only thing that is the real remedy, is the cancellation of the union. Air Hamilton: The Alinister said we do not know, the law. He does not know the law in practice. He docs not know how it operates. 1 am pleased to have the Alinister’s assurance that he will enforce the law and when any union will not obey the decision of the Court he will have the law carried out. L think he will find under the law as it is written to-day that he cannot do it. These penalties want revising. The clause was retained by 51 to 15. Air S. G. Holland (Opp., ChristchuAh North) moved an amendment to Clause 15 with the object of al'owing the continuation of piecework and after some discussion the amendment was defeated by 48 to 14 and the clause passed. Air K. A. Wright (Indepi.., Wellington Suburbs) moved an amendment to • Clause 16 exempting persons who were conscientiously opposed to trades unionism from membership o-f unions. The Alinister explained that he had made inquiries all over Australia to see if persons of a particular religious organisation were exempt fiom the preference clause and he had inserted a clause exempting businesses which were not in business for pecuniary gain. The amendment was defeated by 44 to 17. A further amendment by Hon. J. G. Cobbe (Opp-. Orona) to exempt managers in certain •cases from union membership was no-t pressed when the Minister said he would look into the position. The clause was challenged but was retained by 48 to 16. An amendment by Air Polson to Clause 17, on whose behalf Mr Coates moved it, provided that nothing in the clause should give right of entry to premises used exclusively as private homes. Mr Armstrong said there was nothing in the Bill to give such right of entry and he would be the last to interfere with the privacy of homes. The Opposition knew there was no such intention to enter private homes so why mention it. It was only done for political purposes. Mr Forbes said that undoubtedly a feeling of uneasiness existed that the right of entry should be- given to a union official. Mr Armstrong: A Judge could do it if he had good and sufficient reason. Progress was reported an] the 110-use rose at 5.30 p.m.