THE DAY’S PAY.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1922, Page 5

THE DAY’S PAY.

QUESTION OF REDUCTION. mu A pt: and LIVING COSTS. ARGUMENT BEFORE COURT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, April 27When the Arbitration Court opened to-day Mr. Justice Frazer said he wished to clear up any misunderstanding in regard to the court’s Wanganui pronouncement. This was not a tentative proposal that wages should he reduced by 5s per week. The court’s statement was purely a statistical one and not in any sense a statement of whether, or to what extent wages should be reduced. The employers’ evidence waa continued, and Mr. Seed, secretary of the Dominion Federated Sawmillers’ Association, read a statement showing the closing down of the mfils and. shortening of hands and a general reduction of 2s per hundred in prices at the mill. Labor costs represented 70 to 75 per cent, of the total cost of production. Mr. Beaumont Mapple'back, representing the boot manufacturers, gave evidence as to the unparalleled, prosperity of the ‘boot trade between 1915 and 1918. Witmer spoke of the effect of heavy importations in 1920, causing New Zealand factories when the slump came to work half time. England, where the wages were £2 18s compared with £4 Ils 8d here, and where workers put in four extra hours, was New Zealand’s greatest competitor. Manufacturers had had to sell below coat as much as 50 per cent, in some cases and the latest figures showed that in March •last there were employed 176 less workers than in March 1920. EMPLOYEES’ CASE.

Mr. McCombs congratulated Mr. Bishop on the choice of the engineering trade as the principal basis from which to fight the case and for his avoidance of the woollen and other industries, which were paying handsomely. Dealing with the result of stabilisation, he said the reductions in the cost of living had not been as rapid as the court anticipated. The fall of 10s, which should have taken place at the end of the first six months, did not occur until the end of the year. The workers therefore urged that the stabilisation period should be extended for one year and, in making the request, they relied on the pror/iise of the court that if the fall in the cost of living should prove to be less than anticipated there would -be a readjustment. Having protested against the non--publication of the “all groups index numbers since August, 1920, he said the court could not, if it was to maintain a fair standard of living possibly reduce the present minimum rates of wages and, in this connection, contrasted the decision of the Australian Commission fixing the average basic wage at £5 14s sd. Wages, apart from the withholding of the 5s bonus, had already been reduced by employers, who were paying only the minimum wage, and by only intermittent employment. Workers’ wages had always lagged behind t'he increase in the cost of living. To reduce wages to the amount shown by the reduction in the cost of living would be to multiply by two the disadvantages which workers had to put up with during the war and since. SIGN-S OF PROSPERITY. Last session’s Act required the court not to lower wages below what was necessary to maintain a fair standard of living and it was perfectly plain this was to over-ride all other considerations. It was true wages had fallen in other countries, but wages there had increased in a greater ratio than the increase in the cost of living. He- contended that the 1914 standard was not fair in New Zealand, and unfortunately ■New Zealand workers did not to-day obtain as high a wage, measured in purchasing power, as they did in 1914. Discussing economic conditions Mr. McCombs argued there was evidence of increasing prosperity, for New Zealand exports for the year just closed exceeded in amount the total for the two best pre-war years. Heavy import a-t ions in 1920 and the beginning of 1921 temporarily disturbed the balance of trade. , Very substantial reductions in prices should take place before wages were reduc«<L In conclusion .Ir. McCombs urged the court, if lie succeeded in proving that the present basic wage did not | afford a fair standard of living, not only not to reduce wages, but to urge upon the Government the appointment of a commission to go into the question of what is a fair standard of living. It was truer economy to make tile wages Bill the last instead of the first thing to touch.