Workers’ Wages

Wanganui Chronicle, 22 November 1950, Page 4

Workers’ Wages

Sir,—-May I be permitted space to reply to the letter by Mr. S. J. Sullivan in your issue of Thursday, November 16th. Mr. Sullivan states that I have done the workers of New Zealand a disservice in seeking to uphold the demand of the T.U.C. for an advance of £3/10/- per week in wages. It is regrettable that Mr. Sullivan should choose to distort my statement. My statement was this and I quote in full: “In regard to the £3/10/- increase sought by the Auckland Labourers Union Mr. Sullivan must know perfectly well that its granting is extremely unlikely.” By what stretch of imagination could anyone regard that as constituting support for their demand. To develop the point I quoted the interim general wages order in which the workers claimed 16/2 per week increase and were given 7/-. What I have sought to do is to defend the workers from these unjustified attacks which Mr. Sullivan sees fit to deliver from time to time. The real issue at stake in this discussion is the freedom of the worker to agitate for wage increases which Mr. Sullivan sought to destroy by requesting the Wanganui Chamber of Commerce to adopt measures to stop the continual agitation for increases in wages throughout New Zealand. Such a proposal strikes at the very roots of the western concept of democracy.

In his reply on the 16th November, Mr. Sullivan contradicts himself. Therein he states that he is perfectly in agreement that workers have every right to seek wage increases. Had Mr. Sullivan gone to the Chamber with a proposal based on moral issues and calculated to further friendly relations between employer and employee it is logical to assume that he would have drawn some support.

Such a campaign might result in the increase in production desired by Mr. Sullivan. However it is doubtful whether increased production would result in a decrease in living costs until such time as the supply exceeds the demand.

While Mr. Sullivan desires to limit wages he has evaded the issue of whether industry should likewise accept a limit on the cost, of goods and degree of profits. Is it not enough that industrial unions are prevented by law from applying to the Arbitration Court for any increase in wages with a year of the making of a general wages order. The worker has no guarantee that the cost of living will not rise during that year.

Finally Mr. Sullivan states that when subsidies were cut the Reds demanded £2 per week increase. He omitted to state that the Fascists demanded that no increase be made. Further, in presenting his calculations on the Federation of Labour claim he omitted to take into account the 660,000 persons dependent on the 585,000 wage and salary earners, nor did he consider the estimate of the Government Statistician that the reduction of subsidies would be reflected in the consumers price index by the end of the June quarter as to represent an increase of £5/6/10 in annual expenditure per head of population. I am, etc., DAVID H. WILKIE.