WORKERS WAGES.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 November 1922, Page 5

WORKERS WAGES.

EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT. CHEAPER FOOD; HIGH RENTS. JUDGE'S SEVERE COMMENT. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Nov. 10. The Arbitration Court to-day heard representatives of worere and employers in regard to consideration which should weigh with the Court in determining wheterh wages should be reduced, and, if so, ’by what amount, Mr. T. Bloodworth, on behalf of the employees, claimed that no further reduction should be made from the present rates of pay. After dealing with past adjustments he said the actual rise in prices and the consequent decrease in the purchasing power of wages was greater tha nshown by the official figures. He alluded to a worker’s loss of time, and claimed that there had been a revival in trade, a great revival in some branches. The boot and shoe trade was now prosperous, and the building industry 'busy. Housing conditions and rent, he urged, were still unatifactory. Miss Cossey, representing the women workers of Auckland, said the present wages were barely enough for existence. Women were being forced to leave trades, and if wages were further reduced, she would advise women to leave the trades and go into domestic work.

Mr. Justice Frazer stated that th< outstanding feature of the latest sta tistics was the drop in the food group: to the 1918 figures. He thought then would be a continued fall for the nexi six montlis. Other items were not com ing down. Rents were rising owing, note the cost of the houses, but to theii scarcity. Subsequently, in discussing worn er workers’ representations, Mr. Justice Frazer said he would like more figures relating to board, which were diflicull to get. Some of the rents charged foi single rooms were a scandal—a regulai swindle in some cases. B. L. Hammond, for the employers addressed the Court at length. He stated the employers accepted the posi tion as established by the three shil lings reduction arrived at by the Court. He reviewed conditions of trade ami argued that the present rates of pa' were not warranted by those condi tions. CASE FOR THE EMPLOYERS. BURDEN OF HIGH WAGES. PLEA FOR A REDUCTION. Wellington, Last Night. At the Arbitration Court, W. D. Hunt .gave evidence on behalf of the employers as to tho present and prospective prices of farm produce. The farmers’ net income was now much less than in 1914. B. L. Hammond, who appeared for the employers to argue the case whether wages should be reduced or not, said that in April last he pointed out two definite questions had to be argued by the Court: (1) Whether a general reduction was necessary;; (2) Assuming it was, what reduction was justified, having regard to the maintenance of a fair standard of living, to increase or decrease ae cost of living to an economic condition of trade and industry, and any other relevant conditions. Today the position was identical with April, except that the employers proposed to adduce argument and evidence in .support of the view that it was tho duty of the Court to put into effect any reduction in wages corresponding to the decrease in the cost of living. STANDARD OF LIVING. The Court having indicated a reduction of 3« per week the employers accepted this figure. Any suggestion to adjust wages immediately raised a cry against interference with the standard of living. The employers did not desire that wages should be reduced unnecessarily, but he pointed out that the basic wage provided for a fair standard of living, and when to this bonuses had been added from time to time it was only logical that these bonuses should disappear when the circumstances that created them no longer existed. The employers did not seek to interfere with the basic wage, but that bonuses should be reduced. To this there was no logical answer, so the unions raised quite another issue by saying the Legislature had laid it down that the Court must not reduce wages | below a fair standard of living. Ho could not admit that this question arose j in the case under review, and, furthermore, he suggested to the Court that the Legislature had not done anything of the kind. DETERMINING FACTORS. ' Tee expression “standard of living” was mere camouflage. The unions would ask them to believe it means one determined by our desires and our tastes. To that he would say, firstly, vhat an individual’s standard of living is determined By his income; secondly, that his income is determined by the condition of trade and industry; thirdly, that the condition of trade and industry is determined, in the case of New Zealand, by the prices realised by cur primary produce in the world’s markets; fourthly, that prices determine the standard of living of the people of this Dominion; fifthly, that this standard must necessarily fluctuate in sympathy with the condition of trade and industry; and, lastly, tliat this standard, is the “standard of living” the Legislature had in mind. If this is so, then obviously the standard of living could not be arbitrarily maintained by any Court or any Legislature. Mr. Hammond went on to argue that the Legislature recognised the impossibility of a fixed standard by requiring the Court to take account of the relevant considerations and he contended the Court was only required to maintain such a standard as is generally enjoyed by the people. If the Court had bo fix a wage which would enable the worker to maintain a specified degree of comfort, how was that wage to be paid in the event of industry not being able to carry the burden? The standard would fall, despite any award of the Court. He submitted the Dominion as a whole could not continue to pay the present rate of wages for another .tan. months, and, moreover, he asserted

it could not really afford the wages that had been paid in the last 12 months. “A FOOL’S PARADISE." After dealing at length with industrial conditions in other countries, Mr. Hammond concluded by saying: “I propose submitting for the confidential information of the Court -several balance slleets, all of which bear testimony to the need for relief from the present high cost of -production, resulting largely from high wages. We have been living in ‘a fool’s paradise,’ and the sooner we realise that feet, and by the united efforts of workers and employers alike, assisted by this Court, get back to normal conditions, -with reasonable rates of pay, the better for ah concerned. It is within the power of the Court to decree whether we shall remain in that ‘fool’s paradise’ until economic ’considerations drag us out with a rude awakening, or whether we shall reach this level whereon we may rest and gather strength to get over adverse circumstances created by world conditions as they arise. If the Court decrees the former -by declining to reduce wages it may be found that economic considerations will increase our difficulties in spite of the Court, whereas if it makes a general reduction in wages, notwithstanding the unpleasantness of doing so, it will be, rendering a service to workers and employers alike, and the Dominion, as well as fulfilling the functions the Court i« especially intended to fulfil."