LABOURERS' WAGES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1143, 2 June 1911, Page 6

LABOURERS' WAGES.

RISE OF SIXPENCE.

CITY COUNCIL AS EMPLOYER.

AN ANIMATED DEBATE.

Wages of labourers were discussed at the City Council last night on the following report from the i'inajice Committee:— That they have further considered their recommendation to grant the labourers (permanent and casual) in the employ of the corporation an increase of (id. per day, from • tho hist meeting of the council. They have to recommend (hat the council adopt tho above recommendation. Councillor Trevor v moved an amendment to confine the proposed advance to tho permanent labourers, and leave (he wages of the casual hand:, unchanged. If the council put up the wages, outside contractors would have to do the samo. Jle did not think the council got any better class of labourers than (he contractors. On the contrary, the corporation had to employ men who had been unfortunate, and ivere not used to pick and shovel work. The proposed rise would revolutionise contractors' work in Wellington, and he thought that if that was to be done it should be done through the Arbitration Court. He quite thought that the permanent men ought to have Bs. lid. a day as proposed, but not the casual labourers. Councillor Smith seconded the amendment. The Mayor, in answqr to questions, said the council had at present UT permanent labourers at Ss. a day. The rise was asked for by a deputation. Councillor Jl'Larcn: By the General Labourers' Vnion. The amendment was lost. A Shilling Rise Proposed, Councillor M'Laren moved another amendment to give both permanent and casual labourers a rise of Is. a day. Ho said the casuals probably averaged, only five days a week, the year round. Wages in all trades were higher in Wellington because of the higher cost of living. The Napier Borough Council paid Is. lkl. and Is. .Id. an hour; Wanganui Borough Council 9s. a day as a minimum, aivl 9s. Bd. and 10s. Gd. to certain classes of men; Masterton, 9s. a day. Several contractors had paid Is. 3d. an hour to casual labourers in Wellington. Ex-Councillor Morrah had employed-20 or 30 men at Maranui for several months, paying Is. 3d. an hour, and holiday pay and a bonus at the end of the job. He quoted certain local contractors who, he said, wore paying Is. 3d. an hour. The Karori, Lower Ilutt, and Miramar Borough Councils were paying 9s. a day to permanent men, and work was often found for (ho permanent hands in wet weather by those bodies and the City Council. The Harbour Board paid a largo body of casual workers at 9s. and 9s. <!d. a day, and its regular staff was paid at Is. 3d. an hour. The cost of the increase he proposed would be about' JMOOO. It would not affect the rates in the slightest degree. Councillor Hindmarsh, who seconded the amendment,, in dealing with Councillor Trevor's objection that a concession by the council would establish a ' precedent, claimed that competition did not operate in the case of dealings between a. local body and its employees, and on that account could not be taken as a precedent by tho Arbitration Court. Where a man employed 200 men he could either get them to work longer hours or pay them better and so stimulate their output. The speaker had been told that, owing to improved supervision, corporation labourers worked much harder than they did some years ago. Mr. Morton had himself stated that this was the case. It was not the fault of the corporation labourers that Wellington was n dear cily (n live in. ' It might be the council's fault for neglecting to establish municipal markets. (Laughter.) Markets would mean cheaper food. If a local lxidy employed men to do hard work they should bo well paid. Statement by the Mayor. The Mayor stated that he had caused the'following telegram to be sent to Auckland, Christchurcii, and Dunedin:—"What wages" are paid' to labourers, permanent and casuals! , " ' . The replies were:— Auckland: Both Bs. per day, Is. per hour, award rates. Dunedin: Permanent and casuals, Is.per hour. Christchurcii: One shilling per hour.' Councillor M'Laren had cited the cases of Wanganui, Hastings, and Napier, continued Mr. Wilford. Jt was true that these places .paid 9s. per day, but Mr. M'Laren, in stating that this city could pay another shilling per day to its labourers without going to tho ratepayers for more rates, was not correct. The councillor was also \trong in his statement about tho surplus. He had forgotten existing commitments of revenue for laud purchase and ether things. The surplus that had to bo paid away for land was not available. The speaker hoped to absorb, this year, all available labour in tho city. If the rise of sixpence recommended by tho Finance Committee were approved this could be done. Replying to a question, the Mayor said he could not state even approximately the amount involved. There were 117 permanent men. He wauled to employ during this winter all the men who required work. They must calculate how much money they could spare. The .£IOO,OOO loan for tho Wainui water works extension had been raised on a presumption that ss. per day would be paid for casual labour. Tenders had been accented on this basis. The recommendation of the Finance Committee proposed a rise of Gd. per for every man employed on this work. Ihc Wainui extension work would be, started almost immediately. At present 295 men were employed, but presently, with the Wainui work.?, sewage works, and extra work to be undertaken, there would l>o MO men to pay during the winter, if tho council sanctioned the rise of 6d. per day. The Man Who Pays. The question of the payment respectively of permanent and casual labour was a very awkward one. The speaker wanted to give the largest possible rise in wages, but. it should be borne in mind that the man who had to get the extra wages, in the end had to pay.extra rates, through his landlord putting up the rent. Councillor Hindmarsh: "Why does he not put it up now! , '' The Mayor: "The rates liave not been raised during the past two years." Councillor Jlindmarsh: "Oh, he is geiv The Mayor: "I believe that if you put on an extra rate,, the landlords in this town will pass it on." Everything came upon tho general public in tho end, the Mayor continued, and the consumer, especially the poor man, had to pay. This was purely and absolutely a 'question of what the council could do. At Ihe end of (he year the Gd. rise would be found to represent a total outlav of about JilOOiJ, instead of .£2OOO, as Mr. M'Laren suggested, while the Is. ri-e. which Mr. M'Laren advocated, would absorb something like JSIIOO. Mr Fuller said he (bought the rise ■ should be Is., instead of Gd., but he intended to move an amendment late:. Councillor Shirteliffo expressed sympathy with the labourers, but did. not think the council could afford to adopt Mr M'Laren's proposal. He calculated that 'it would cost -63750. but. it would also lead to increases of other men's wa"os. He questioned whether the eoun-flil'on'o-ht tn differentiate as at present in favour of the casual men to the extent of I* a day. It would be better to differentiate in favour of married men a"ainst single. "The amendment was defeated by 10 to 5. A Third Amendment, Councillor Fletcher said the men on the Harbour Board who were paid 9s. and 9s. ■id a day were storekeepers and similar ollicials. ' Tho regular wages paid by tho board were Ss. Gd. to permanent men and Is 3d to casuals. He moved as an ! amendment to make the rates for casual hands Is- 3d. an hour. The City Council had no right to pay lower wages than the private emplover?. most of whom paid Is. 3d. lo casual 'employees. This amendment was seconded by Councillor I'il/.gerald, who thought the casual' should be made permanent. There could be no real difficulty about it. Opinion of the City Engineer. The City Engineer (Mr. Morton) said casual labour for the .corporation was ]

not comparable to casual labour under the Jlarhour Hoard. It was only made I'iiMiul by Iho weather and by the duralion of tlio job. 'the job* were usually large one.-., and came one after another, so that there were i-oiuc men who had been employed continuously since 1901. 'i hey could have bei'i) put on as; permanent, but it was Car preferable to pay them more and let them rert when the weather slopped the works.

Councillor Fuller thought the 'matter should go through (he Arbitration Court. Councillor Darker said , it seemed to be better to be on the casual Ihan'on the permanent stall'. Me believed !».<. a day was little enough for the permanent labourer to get , . Councillor l-'rost favoured a reference of Ihc question to the Arbitration Court. Me thought .-oine of the speakers had hud the general election in mind.

Councillor Cameron said he would back up the Finance Committee. To reject \U recommendation would ho to disorganise the work of the Arbitration Court and Ci\u=e strife with, the private employer. If the men thought they were being badly treated they would undoubtedly carry the matter to the Arbitration Court.

Councillor Smith opined that on account of difference in work and conditions Hie Harbour Board employees should bo paid more than those of the City Council. Labourers employed on the latter body were well paid in receiving 9s. n day.' The speaker- had considered that a rise.of (id. per day to the permanent men alone would be sufficient, but lie would support, the recommendation of the committee.

Councillor M'Kenzie contended that high ronU iverc due to high rates. An increase in wages would come back on the worker. He would have to pay higher rent. Again, to raise the wages might cause an influx of outside labour. What was really wanted wars, if possible, .to enhance (he spending, value of the sovereign. ' Meantime the increase of wages was only placing a burden on the worker.

The-amendment was defeated by 11 votes to i

Immediately afterwards the original motion, embodying the recommendation of the committee of a rise of Gd. per day to both permanent and casual labourers was carried on the voice?.