NEW COST-OF-LIVING BONUS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 34, 4 November 1920, Page 5

NEW COST-OF-LIVING BONUS

ANNOUNCEMENT BY ARBITRATION COURT

NO ALLOWANCE FOR INCREASE

IN BUTTER PRICE

Br Tolegrash—Proas Association. Christchurch, November 3. The Arbitration Court this aiternoon announced a further "cost-of-living" bonus. The Court's pronouncement was as follows :— Tho Court las now; received a leport from thq Government Statistician shelving a further increase in the cost of living during the half-yearly period onded September 30, frcui which it appeal's that in order to compensate workers for su<jh iluureaao, and tojfinailiiUuu tho purchasing power of their wages, it will be neccssary to grant a further bonus of 2Jd. per hour to all adult workers. In accordance, therefore, with the principle adopted in previous .adjustments of wages in correspondence with the increased cost of living, the Court, unless good cause is 6hown. to the contrary, purposes granting the following further bonuses:—To male adult workers, 2Jd. per hour, or 9s. per week, us the base may be; to female workers over the age of 20, years, 4s. Gd. per week; to female workers under the age of 20 years and to youths and apprentices, 3s. per week. Such bonuses are to be payable from November 1 lasr.

It will be necessary for unions which consider their members entitled to these bonuses-to file in Court a formal application' therefor, and this should be done without delay, in order that employers may have timely notice of the intended application, and an early opportunity of making such arrangements as they, may think proper. Hitherto it has been tho practice to' delay filing applications until the definite da'te of sittings of the Court has been fixed, but tho proper course is to file the applications at once for hearing "at the first sittings of the Court after the. filing of tho application," and such applications will then bq (dealt with" when and where, the exigencies of tho business of the Court will permit.' The majority of employers will, no doubt, as in previous cases; pay thq -increased bonus without.waiting for a formal order of tho Court, but those emfCoyers who niay consider they have good grounds for contesting the grant of the bonus to their workers, and do contest it, will not, in the event of the decision of '-he Court being against thorn, have -any ground for complaining, as is sometimes doiie, of the unfairness of ordinary retrospective payment of the bonus. On the other 'hand, unions which unduly delay the filing of tlieir intended applications for tho bonus may by such delay* lose the right to retrospective payment to Novembert 1; No Special Bonus, Representations have been made to the Government that, owing to the increase sinco September 30 last in the price of butter, which forma a substantial item in household expenditure, a special bonus should be granted to meet this increase. This, however, is obviously impracticalfe. ; The Court cannot grant a bonus based upon the increased price ol any particular, commodity.' The half-yearly periods for which the Court computes any - boiiuses granted were selected ■ by the Government Statistician, as being tho most equitable division of tho year, to ensure that seasonal and other exceptional fluctuations of the market should not unduly affect the result of any particular period. It is true that the price of butter has increased, but it is impossible to say how long this may continue. On the othsr hand, some of the commodities have fallen' in price,- and it is only tho net results of all the involved, extending over the selected periods, U]>on wfiich the Court can act in determining the amount of any cost-of-living bonus.

Wages and' Prices. It is frequently .stated that the effect of increasing the wages of workers is still further to increase the cost of living and therefore that the relief to, the worker is merely temporary. This is undoubtedly truq to some extent, but not to tho .extent commonly supposed. On this question. the following passage from a report made by tho New South Wales Board ,ol Trade in October last is worth quotation as being equally applicable to couditions in New Zealand"lncidentally, discussion arose during the ijiquiry as. to the effect of further increases of wages on production and on the future price? of necessary commodities. There is a singular absence of data in Australia .as to the labour cost in production, but it quite clear that the oft TeitMated contention. that every increase in wagta is' exactly reflected in prices, will not bear examination. .Increased labour cost clearly con tributes to the increase in sorno prices. We get a definite illustration of this in tha cost of transport; with each material increase in wages thern is ail increase ih freightage. But as to the majority of ordinary commodities prices nre controllable by world influences, not, by local variations in labour conditions. There is at present no way of estimating to. what extent increased prices aro the actual result of increased wages. Wages are necessarily reflectwl in prices, but the board is able to say that wuge increases of-,the last four years uiV not by any means solely responsible for the high cost of living. Tfci?re is a remarkable confusion of cause and effect k exnmining this aspect of the problem. Increases in wages have-during the recent years been, more tl& result than the cause of high nrices. If it ■ weru a function of the board to indefinitely deal with this issue it could' not furnish a report of rtny value until after the adoption of some standard system of costing. The gnno discontent arising from 1 ever-increasing prices cannot be allayed by a proposal to krep wages stationary and to trust to the future." ' "