The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, October 11th., 1913. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1157, 11 October 1913, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, October 11th., 1913. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

We have lodged a complaint at headquarters against the criminal and reprehensible practice of a certain misguided individual employed in or about the local goods shed who possesses a mania for scribbling defamatory messages on packages passing through the goods shed, the property of local consignees. It is regrettable that suspicion for such despicable conduct should rest upon innocent and honourable employees and that the culprit should have so little regard for their welfare, in the service. It is hoped for the employees sake and the honour of the service that this charge will be sheeted home and an example made of the culprit.

Discussing the cost of living, the Sydney Daily Telegraph points out that in the Federal Arbitration Court at Melbourne a few days ago Mr Justice Higgins departed somewhat from the usual custom of others who grapple with wage conditions, and, as he had done before, fixed what is really a minimum wage, though loosely described at times as a living wage. In 1907 His Honour found that 7s per day was “the appropriate minimum wage” for the ordinary labourer iu or near Melbourne. In the meantime the cost of living has increased, a fact which necessarily has a bearing on wages, and in this case (that of gasworks employees in Victoria and Hobart) the proper wage for Melbourne was adjudged to be 8s sj£d per day (or 8s 6d as an even figure). It is interesting to notice that in making this estimate Mr Justice Higgins was influenced by the statistician’s finding that living is more expensive in Sydney than in Melbourne, and that what 9s will purchase in the way of necessaries of life in Sydney will only cost 8s oj£d in Melbourne, In some degree that is said to be due to the higher rents prevailing in Sydney, but it is also to be remembered that up to the year 1901, against which the calculation is made, New South Wales bad a free trade policy, which naturally meant comparative cheapness. Still, even in Melbourne, the Court iound that what could have been purchased for 7s iu 1907 would cost SssJsdnow; and on that principle and in view of recent Sydney awards fixing the wages for similar labour at 9s, the award was made for the other two States, with a slight reduction for Hobart. This, however, is a minimum, not a living wage. The two things must not be confused, especially because a minimum wage tends in the usual course of things to become a maximum. The worker on the minimum living wage would find himself sorely pinched in bad limes, when the tendency is for the price of necessities to rise and lor that of labour to go down, while unemployment also has to be risked. The Federal Court seems to have kept this distinction iu mind and to have specified a minimum wage which keeps the labourer well on the right side of the “bread line.”