The Dominion FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1921. THE ARBITRATION COURT AND WAGES

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 17, 14 October 1921, Page 6

The Dominion FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1921. THE ARBITRATION COURT AND WAGES

The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday after a break of nearly six weeks occasioned solely by the resignation of Mr. J. A. M'Cullough. The latter, though he has been reappointed to the position of workers’ representative, is “unable” to rejoin the Court, though not, apparently, to grant interviews. He has stated in Christchurch that his position “is still the same as when - I resigned.” What exactly he means by that it is difficult to imagine, but his actual position evidently is that he made a charge against the Court which he has failed completely to sustain. He accused the Court of flagrantly breaking an agreement that there should be no reduction of wages until after April 30, 1922. Conclusive proof was available before -Mr. M'Cullough laid his charge that the Court had entered into no such agreement, and indeed had most explicitly reserved the right to vary its stabilisation arrangement should the necessity for doing so arise. Tn the circumstances, no overpowering regret will be felt should Mr. M'Cullough find himself permanently “unable” to resume his former place on the Arbitration Court bench. It is to be hoped that amending legislation about to bo brought down will adequately safeguard the Court against being thrown out of action at any future time because one of its members happens to have an imaginary grievance.

Having resumed operations, the Court Has made a statement in regard to the stabilisation scheme which is interesting, but may be received rather dubiously by those who are in touch with industrial conditions Dominion. The members of the Court, it is stated, have every reason to believe that unless "something very unforeseen” occurs, the stabilisation scheme will stand for the period for which it was made—to" the end of April next. Even in the case of industries in which wages are above the standard rates and reductions may bn ap< ■plied for in connection with claims for new awards, the Court, before ordering a reduction,

will require the clearest and strongest evidence that the present, rates cannot bo maintained until April. 1922, and no reduction will have tho effect of bringing the wages of the workers below the Court’s standard rates for workers of a similar grade working under similar conditions.

Briefly, the Court intends to maintain at least standard wages at their present level for the next six months and” a half unless “something very unforeseen” compels it to. reconsider • this decision. Tho Court, no doubt, feels bound to adhere to the policy it announced nearly six months ago—a policy perhaps forced upon it against its better judgment—but in view of tho condition to which many Dominion industries are reduced, this continuing attempt to maintain an artificial wages standard must be regarded as at best of very doubtful wisdom. Money wages at their present level are already in some cases a factor in causing unemployment, and, even allowing for the fact that tho summer is opening and that employment in some seasonal and other industries ought now to expand, it seems very possible that before tho end of the stabilisation period is reached the harmful effects of artificially holding up money wages on a falling market may be more apparent and pronounced than they are to-day.

In a time of trade and industrial depression, when prices are falling, and would be falling still more rapidly but for the high level of tho money wages which largely govern and determine prices, these high money wages are very definitely an obstacle to trade and industrial recovery. The artificial maintenance in these conrlitions of higher money wages than ruling conditions warrant must tend to reduce real wages both in aggregate amount and in purchasing power. A reduction in money wages and producing costs which lowered prices and stimulated trade, and thus at onee broadened the field of employment and gave money an increased purchasing power, would be, of course, not a loss but a gain to wage-ca.rncrs. Since, for th'e time being, it doses this route to recovery, the stabilisation scheme is evidently not benefiting wageearners or the community generally. Tt would hardly be fair to blame the Arbitration Court for persevering in the policv to which it is committed, but there is no doubt that an adjustment of wages to the actual conditions of trade and industry now ruling would better servo the interests of all concerned and more especially those of the wage-earners.