WAGES ADJUSTMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 April 1921, Page 4

WAGES ADJUSTMENT.

It is quite possible that some of those who have followed the strenuous struggle by the miners in the Old Country for a national wage's pool may consider there is so little difference between the proposals of the miners and the concessions which the Government is prepared to yield, that a settlement of the dispute should not be difficult. In reality such is not the case. There are vital principles involved, and a wide gap separating the parties to the dispute having to be bridged before a settlement can be reached. According to Mr. Herbert Smith, the miners’ representative, the Government proposals, although providing a subsidy for the poor mines, amount to a scheme for the owners’ benefit, whereas the miners are out for a national wages board and a pooling arrangement, whieji is not, in the opinion of the Government, feasible without a resumption of permanent control of the mines by the State—-in other words, nationalisation of the industry —while-a voluntary arrangement would break down. At the same time the Government is favorable to a practical national scheme of wages that will provide a standard wage for each district, and be the first charge on the proceeds of the industry. In effect this would be a profit-sharing arrangement with a guaranteed remuneration for the workers, as no profits wou/1 be paid to the owners until the standard wage is satisfied, the principle on which the standard is fixed, and the method of adjustment of wages in each district to be determined nationally, regard being had not merely to the price of coal, but to “the possibilities of improving wages by increased economy and efficiency.” This latter provision is virtually the crux of the whole matter, as it concerns the very important relation that exists between wages and output, and it is the rock on which a split occurs between the parties to the dispute. Admitting that in good coal districts where the. mineral easy to win, the miners, on an output basis, are more favorably placed than where the ceal is hard to get out,

it offers ns justification for a national pool or a national wages board. On the contrary, it emphasises the wisdom of the ’Government proposal to adjust the wages in each district. The object of the miners’ scheme as propounded by Mr. Hodges is perfectly obvious—securing for all the men top wages without reference to output jxcept as the amount of levy to be imposed on the tonnage raised at each mine, and the effect of that scheme would, as Mr. Lloyd George contended, be “to so completely beat down the industry that it would not be worth while for anybody to pick it up.” In proof of the desire of the Government to effect a fair settlement, an offer was made that, as soon as the coal-owners and miners agreed as to wages, State assistance should be given for a short time to mitigate a rapid reduction of wages in some districts. Mr. Hodges contends that, if the workers in good areas are prepared to make sacrifices, the owners should be equally prepared to make sacrifices for their less fortunate brethren. Such an argument is mere gallery play. The future of the coal industry in its relation to national welfare is being jeopardised by pure sefishness on the part of the miners’ leaders, -who are straining after ideals that, however well they may look on paper, are not within the bounds of practicability, but constitute a mfenace to the key industry of Britain. The struggle has a world-wide significance, and it is extremely important that its issue should be satisfactory, so that the question of wages adjustment may be placed on a sound, com-mon-sense basis that will be just to both the employers and employed.