WAGES ORDER

Waikato Times, Volume 127, Issue 21167, 17 July 1940, Page 9

WAGES ORDER

HEARING CONTINUED STATUS OF WITNESS PROFESSOR TOCKER IN BOX (By Telegraph.—Press Association) WELLINGTON, Tuesday When the Arbitration Court hearing of the application by the New Zealand Painters and Decorators’ Federation for a general wages order was resumed this morning, Mr J. Robinson, who is appearing for the Federation, questioned Professor A. H. Tocker, Dean of the Faculty of Commerce and Economics at Canterbury University College, as to his status as a witness. Professor Tocker admitted that he expected to be paid, but claimed that his position was similar to that of a doctor. “If you were offered a fee to give evidence on the other side, would you do so?” he was asked, and replied: “With the same proviso as I got from the Employers’ Federation, that I should be wholly responsible for what I say, and not be subjected to any direction as to what I say.” Course in England Mr Justice Tyndall asked witness if in his opinion when reductions or increases in wages were being considered there should be any differentiation between hourly and weekly rates. Witness said weekly wages might be considered if it were a question of trying to maintain the workers’ standard of living regardless of production costs. From the point of view of wages costs in industry, however, hourly rates seemed more important. In England, said Professor Tocker, in answer to another question, there had been some wage increases, but in his opinion England was not following the right course, nor what Mr J. M. Keynes and many other writers on war finance believed to be the right course. So far, England was taking the easy route of inflation when it must depress the standard of living. His Honour: If Sir John Simon’s Budget had provided for less borrowing and more direct taxation, do you think the workers’ increases would have been withheld? Witness: I think there wou’d have been a stronger attempt at economy throughout th£ country. To Mr D. I. Macdonald, advocate for the employers, Professor Tocker said that because of the shortage of stocks and the existence of the Price Tribunal wage increases would result in increased prices more quickly than in 1936. His Honour: Would the effect of the Price Tribunal not, perhaps, be to prevent the passing on of some of these percentages? Witness: It may retard or hasten it. Primary Producers’ Income Mr W. Machin, of Christchurch, president of the Employers’ Federation, outlined what he considered would be the effect of general wage increases on the various classes of industry and the economic welfare of the Dominion as a whole, especially with reference to various branches of primary production under fixed prices. The majority of primary producers, after all adjustments had been made, had been proved to earn less than the average skilled wage-earner, whose position, like that of wage-earners in general, had steadily improved. Increases in wage rates, Mr Machin said, were not called for at present by the comparative cost of living. They were not compatible with equitable treatment for primary and secondary producers and other employers, or with fairness to the consuming public, especially those on small fixed incomes. The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.