WELFARE LEAGUE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 166, 9 April 1920, Page 7

WELFARE LEAGUE

ORGANISATION AND INDUSTRY

HIGH WAGES AND SHORT

SUPPLIES

HOW CAN THE WORKERS BENEFIT?

{Contributed by - Hie NX Welfare League.)

"Mr. J. Ellis Barker in his interesting boot, entitled "Economic Statesmanship," points out that "before the .Trav American wages were approximately three times as high as were British wages." In 1915 the United States Department of Labour published a vohuno of'some three hundred, pages, entitled "Union Scale of Wages and Hour? or Inborn- May 1, 19U." A' comparison of this' scale wiffo.. the correspond"!? rates paid in Britain shows Mr. Barker is correct. Now here is the fact that demands consideration. Although American wages were about three time? ns high as' corresponding British wages, American commodities were sold freely in neutral countries and even in competition with British productions made, by cheap labour. In many lines American goods were even far cheancr than similar British wares. .This fact suffices to show that lowness,.of wages does not necessarily mean .cheapness, of production. Itmust not. however,' be assumed that raising of wages will of itself cheapen production, indeed without other cause operating it-will .male production more costly. How then, can high- wares'bo paid with a- resultant cheapness of production? It is best explained in th« words of Mr. Barker "because the American workers produce approxbimfely three times as. much as do their British colleagues. -.- Tliev succeed . in; this" becansp the American industries-,n.r.e or, the whole ■ better organised nnd ; more' Rcientifi'-ally managed, and especially' b{cause the American workers hhve not o'llv better, machines, but also because the engine power-per thousand workers is approximately three tiro»s as g r eat as is Briti«h ."iigine power." The figures in substantiation of these conclusions have been publisiicd in English joni-Ml's, widely discussed, criticised in leading technical iom-n.ils. such as "Engineering" and "The Engineer," but have no; been successfully challenged. The Lesson for New Zealand.

Mr. At. J. Heardon, ' on his return from America, told us that the American • workman' toolc a pride in his job and worked well. He might have added Hint this was in a large measure due to the better organisation in America. In respect to their industries they appear to .Have better systems of management, morp machinery and power, and ft much better disciplined form of trades unionism. "• The' result of /this more complete organisation all round is n Tiish level of outmit and high wages for the workers. The les«on for New Zealand is to learn the full meaning of the word ''organisation/' It does'not mean merely more and more associations of employers, or workers got together as - debating societies to talk and pass re- - Our industries call for better organisation in the way of a dnvelopment of the sense of responsibility, and broader outlook on the part of all jbipasp'd in Item, more unity of purpose. 1 It means, also, the adoption of improvements in methods of operation and the systems of control. The industrialists, both employers and emnloyees, should join forces and he most alive towards securing the'greatest sifpply possible of electrical power. ' The lesson for us is, in short, that we can do much more for our industries and for the raising. of the standard of living- of all employed in them, by unitv and co-oncotion than by class isolation and. continual sectional strife. Whether, we want the present form of society or not. surely it is wise to make the best out of it whilst we have .it, wh'ch can only be done l>y greater co-operation and - im-' provehicrits of our systems of working.

How Can the Workers. Benefit? ■'■•■ To judge from what is taking place in New Zealand to-day it would appear that the trades' unionists have made up their minds that the workers can only benefit by securing higher wages and shorter hours. Everywhere those are the demands bei.ig made. Whore the workers aro underpaid and overworked, ot' course, the demands are just and right to make. What we have to face is the fact that these demands are being made as a general policy. In cases where the hours of work are now it or 15 per week (noc excessive, surely), we find demands for reduction to 40, 39, 35. It is time the trades' unionists faced, the issue squurely as to w'hether the workers really benefit by this policy of "more pay, less work." The fact that higher pay spells higher prices should for;e us to recognise that as things now are, the workers get no benefit from higher wages. It is hard for tlieni to realise this, because they are not fully , accustomqd to thinking of wages in terms of their purchasing power. Tho workers can only, benefit by securing more of real wealth, namely, more of the commodities produced. To acquire this would be to get' a. real riso in wages. It cannot be too often presented that prosperity does not consist in high wages, but in adequacy of house.s, furniture, food, clothes, ctc. If tho people recognised this they would probably also realise that if the building trade, the furniture trade, and others produce much per head thero will be an abundance of house room, furniture, and other necessities, whether wages aro high or low. If, on the other hand, : production per head is low there will be n scarcity of such necessities if the workers should earn «£lo.a day in wages. After five years of destructive warfare we aro lorced to face the task of reconstruction. The demand for -commodities in many directions far exceeds tho supply, and Uio masses are going short. The workers' highest benefit will come from increased production, for only thus can lie get more of the tilings he needs. Increased Production Not. Harder Work.

The average trades' unionist .thinks tho rati for more products is simply a call for harder work on the part of the wage earners. This is not a correct view of the matter. It is true that some mean by "more production" just harder toil, but by more production we mean a larger output by means of closer co-opera-tlion, better .system, 'improvement of methods, and the cessation of thq silly practice of "loafing on the job," which the Red Revolutionists advocate. It need not be thought that doubling tho production would mean doubling the ijsertion on the part of tho workers. It is now established by experience that the greatest output often requires the least, exertion, whilst the smallest output demands the greatest amount of hard toil- A smith with a heavy hammer worked by hand produces little per hour compared villi another, with a steam hammer or hydraulic hammer, though he may work much harder. Jn urging the need for more and more production that the people's wants l>e better niet, it is the means and systems of production that we wish to see improved, not harder work oil the part of the workers, but labour that will be more interested in the industries, better directed and better applied is what we look for as one means towards securing more production, which latter would help to level prices and give tho workers in general a real rise in wages by giving them more of tho filing's they work for. This is what they have learnt and practice in America-