MINIMUM WAGE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1105, 19 April 1911, Page 8

MINIMUM WAGE.

. » "WHY NOT ABOLISH THE COUMT?" WORK FOR PARLIAMENT. Christchurch, April 18. At the afternoon sitting of the Trades nnd Labour Confcrcncn, Mr. M. Laracy (Canterbury) moved: "That the Government l)e requested to bring down, a Minimum Wage liSill, such minimum to be Is. 3d. per hour." The mover said that Is. 3d..was nothing more than a lair vac?. Mr. 11. J. Farrant (Southland) supported the remit. It would assist unorganised workers and those who,-for various reasons, could not organise. Mr. M. J. Forde (Southland) said that it was not money ut all, but the purchas- ' ing power of money, which was taken into consideration. Mr. J. Haynes (Otago) said that the minimum in some trades should bs more than Is. 3d. per hour. He suggested that the mimimum should be fixed in the Bill. The remit did not provide for women aud children. Mr. E. Howard (Canterbury) said that increases granted in trades reduced the wages of those below them, and Is. 3d. was a minimum below which they should not fall. The minimum should not bo below the minimum living wage, £2 9s. Od. It was a fact that in the General Labourers' Union, the average wage was from 30s. to 355. Mr. M'Laren, M.P., said that Is. 3d. per hour in certain occupations would bo a starvation wage. He moved that the words "not less than" be inserted after "be." Mr. Laracy accepted the aniendment. Mr.- AV. T. Young (Wellington) said that the Bill would havo to provide various minimums. • The chairman (Mr. 31. J. B«ardon) remarked that this was asking Parliament to tako over. the function of tho Arbitration Court. Mr. Young said that there were workers receiving a higher minimum than the one suggested—the electrical engineers and waterside workers, for instance. lhe conference should go into the niatter exhaustively, and prepare a table of minimum wages for all trades.' Mr. J. Young (Christchurch) said that the remit was intended to establish a living wage. It was not intended to prevent trades asking higher miuiiuunis in lhe Arbitration Court. The chairman said that there was a whole v sheaf of principles involved, and the conference' anneared to bo going to pass tho motion without.knowing what il was loaded with. It it were put on the Statute Book, the conference would abolish tho Arbitration Court straight away. He was inclined to agree with thn employers, who said that thn labour laws wero getting fo complex and involved that a man in a large way of business could not cope with them. Thuv would havo to go !o Parliament to fix l.lieiy hours and their "overtime. Tho Arbitration Court had laid down definite principles in regard to Overtime and holidays. Why not make a , proposal to abolish the Court, and havo these principles embodied in legislation? Mr. E. J. Carey (Wellington) said that lie had been instructed to support tho remit, but personally ho was opposed to it. Ho believed that hours and holiday!-, might bo fixed by the Legislature, but it would ba unwise to ask for a fvx<;d minimum for wages or overtime, as .it might react on the workers. ' 'Mr. Laracy said that tho proposal ■would not interfere, with tho Arbitni'tiou Court at nil. He thought that their members of Parliament might just as well do the work of fixing hours and wages, instead of "running round and hobnobbing" for nino months of the year. Their members, were just as capable as 'Oudgo Sim, and that was not sarins much for them. The object of tho remit was.to protect poorly-paid-workers. The remit was agreed to. ■