I propose to take unskilled labourers first. The standard wage — the wage paid to most of the labourers by the applicant — is 6s. There is no constancy of employment, as the employer has to put a considerable number of men off in the intervals between the seasons. The seed-drill and plough season, I am told, is in the earlier part of the year, about April; but the busiest time is the harvester season, about August to November.
But even if the employment were constant and uninterrupted, is a wage of 36s. I have tried to ascertain the cost of living — the amount which has to be paid for food, shelter, clothing, for an average labourer with normal wants, and under normal conditions.
I allowed Mr. He also admitted that the evidence given by a land agent, Mr. Aumont, as to the rents, and by a butcher as to meat, could not be contradicted. The usual rent paid by a labourer, as distinguished from an artisan, appears to be 7s. The lists of expenditure submitted to me vary not only in amounts, but in the bases of computation. This expenditure does not cover light some of the lists omitted light , clothes, boots, furniture, utensils being casual, not weekly expenditure , rates, life insurance, savings, accident or benefit societies, loss of employment, union pay, books and newspapers, tram and train fares, sewing machine, mangle, school requisites, amusements and holidays, intoxicating liquors, tobacco, sickness and death, domestic help, or any expenditure for unusual contingencies, religion, or charity.
If the wages are 36s. One witness, the wife of one who was formerly a vatman in candle works, says that in the days when her husband was working at the vat at 36s. This inability to procure sustaining food — whatever kind may be selected — is certainly not conducive to the maintenance of the worker in industrial efficiency. Then, on looking at the rates ruling elsewhere, I find that the public bodies which do not aim at profit, but which are responsible to electors or others for economy, very generally pay 7s.
At the rate of time and a quarter for two hours, time and a half for the next two hours, and double time afterwards. Ironically, the decision of Justice Higgins in the Harvester case was short-lived. However, the Arbitration Court itself picked up the logic and the substance of the Harvester decision and began applying it in federal awards from But what about the rates of pay for women? All the rates of pay set by Justice Higgins in the Harvester decision were for classifications in which only men worked.
At the time, women were not considered to have the responsibility of providing for a family, although of course in practice many actually did so. It was also a time when social security was very limited or non-existent and thus single women with children to support were doubly disadvantaged. But PM has unearthed a paper by Professor Harper which condemns the concept, established in the famous Harvester Judgement of , of a "fair and reasonable" wage.
The Fair Pay Commission's boss also expresses approval for wage rates paid in the sweatshops of lower Manhattan some time ago.
And he argues that low-skilled workers should be paid rates commensurate with their low productivity. Stephen Long reports. But the head of the new so-called Fair Pay Commission has been tight-lipped about his views on fair pay. Now, PM has unearthed a little-known paper by Professor Ian Harper which may help explain why he was chosen for the job.
In his view, contracts between employer and employee had to be supervised and controlled by a righteous judge. Freedom of contract is the necessary foundation for a prosperous, growing economy, and Higgins' attempt in Harvester to supplant with judicial oversight and supervision the rights of people to enter into employment contracts as they desired, implanted into our body politic a malignant tumour that still threatens our future growth, prosperity and ultimately survival as a free and independent nation.
The election campaign makes it clear that both sides of politics are still deeply infected with the Higgins malignancy. Paul Keating's defence of his legislation shows the same entrenched mind-set.
Both sides make it clear they want to regulate and interfere in the labour market. Where they differ is in the measures of regulation and the instruments they wish to employ. The Coalition wants the Commonwealth government, through the use of ministerial regulation, to be the primary instrument of interference and control. Labor wants to bring the trade unions back into the regulatory apparatus. The trade unions, after all, have been the lifeblood of the ALP from its founding, and current Labor policy will restore legal privileges to trade unions that no other institutions in Australia possess.
0コメント