THE BONUS.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 June 1921, Page 5

THE BONUS.

WAGES AND PRICES. COURT HEARS APPLICATIONS. MR. MCOMBS REVIEWS POSITION. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, June 6. The Arbitration Court is sitting today to ‘hear numerous bonus applications. Mr. M’Combs, MJ?., in opening the case for the unions, reviewed the whole position of wages and the cost of living. He said workers averaged 60 to 65 per cent, increase in wages to meet an 85 per cent, increase in the cost of living, the reason being that the Arbitration Court, since 1914, had laid down three principles, each detrimental to the interests of the worker. First, early in the war the court “did not accede to the demands of the workers to increase wages in the same ratio as the increased cost of living, as it considered workers should bear a portion of the cost of the war.” Secondly, under 1918 legislation, in considering the appeal against the 9s bonus the court insisted, against the advice of the statistician,- that the Basis of calculation for all bonuses should be the six monthly period ending March, 1919, which was the epidemic period in which the food prices index rose nearly 190 points. The workers thus lost twothirds of the 9s bonus, but never had compensation for the rise during the epidemic period. INCREASE IN WAGES. Thirdly, the withholding of the 5s payment now due in the plea of stabilising wages. Attempts had been made to cloud the issues by raising the question of the varying standard of living in connection with the cost of living, but the real consideration was that stated by the court when the first cases under the 1918 legislation came before it, namely, what amounts were required to bring the wages fixed by the awards up to the isame purchasing power t'hey possessed when the awards were made. There would be no objection to the principle of stabilising wages if its application took in all the facts of the case, and if its effects were not cumulative with the effects of other principles. Salaries and wages including those of young persons, averaged £99 8s in 1911 and £159 10s in 1920, an increase of 60| per cent. This rather over-stated the real average increase, because of the inclusion of apprentices and young female workers, whose wages increased to a much larger extent, also because the basic year was 1911,

PRICE MOVEMENTS. Mr. M'Combs proceeded to quote statistics to show that wages had not been increased in proportion to the cost of living or to profits, and that the workers’ share of the value added to materials in the process of manufacture had decreased from 51.03 per cent, in 1911 to 44,05 per cent, in 1920. Regarding the allegation that living costs had increased 85 per cent., he urged that the statistician be called. The percentage increase in food, rent, fuel and light was 69 per cent., but this left out clothing and ‘■miscellaneous,” which was included in the “all groups” heading and was pot' published in the abstract of statistics submitted, to the court following the proposal for stabilising wages. Mr. MUombs maintained that, as the nominal wage is 25 per cent, behind the increase in the cost of living and real wages are below the- .1914 standard that whereas -wages have been kept down by war burden-sharing and the computation of bonuses on the epidemic period the present 5s bonus should be paid and no reduction made in wages till the fall in prices exceeds.by 10 per cent, the difference of 25 per cent, now separating wages increases from price increases. Otherwise, if wages fall in proportion to prices when 1914 prices are again reached wages will be 25 per cent, below the 1914 wages. The 5s bonus was a 7A per cent, increase in wages. As in the grocery trade wages represented less than 10 per cent, of the turnover, 5s in wages was only 'three-quarters .per cent, on the turn-over. Similarly it was 1 per cent, on the drapery turnover and in manufacture and production less than 11-5 per cent. The enhanced value of the local market, due to the increases in the purchasing power of the people, would more than compensate businesses for ‘the slight increase in wages ‘cost. FUTURE OUTLOOK. Replying to a remark by Mr. Bloodworth, Mr. Justice Frazer said the current financial situation was a bigger difficulty than the cost of living. Tike court did not want to be pessimistic and was inclined to think that the position might improve all rqund in the next twelve months. Mr.! Bloodworth: “I don’t think the court is very pessimistic. I think it is very courageous.” Mr. Justice Frazer: “We want to avoid what is happening in every other country, a reduction in wages.” Mr. Bloodworth said the workers did not think the stabilisation basis suitable to them. They could not trust the Government, nor the Employers’ Association. Mr. Wright, for the employers, said it was impossible for anyone to give a definite assurance. It all depended on what happened in the next few months.

ANXIOUS TIME AHEAD. DIFFICULTIES OF EMPLOYERS. PRODUCTION AT LOWER COST. Wellington, Last Night. At the Arbitration Court, Mr. S. E. Wright (Auckland) representing the employers, said the present was an anxious time, for employers throughout the Dominion were .faced with a big falling off in trade, varying from 50 to 10 per cent. Already a number of hands had to be put off, and consequently a much larger number of men were applying for work now. Most employers were doing their best to assist the court- and keep staffs employed as long as possible, but necessity knew no law, aud stocks could not be accumulated indefinitely. Financial pressure on employers was extreme, and what we must aim at is increased production at a lower cost. The standard of living, he said, would not necessarily be reduced, and the final adjustment might take time to develop, but eventually the natural laws of evolution must prevail, and all things find their normal level. Trade would

not revive until the consuming public was convinced that a normal level had been reached. With falling prices we must have a fall in the cost o-f production, namely wages, or have increased production for the same wages. This would not really be detrimental to wage-earners. Our watchword for the present must be production and economy in all departments, and an addition to wages would result in many workers being thrown out of work. Employers asked the workers’ co-operation. Decision was reserved.