The wage freeze has led to a cut in the living standards of the British people because prices have gone up more than wages. The Government's economic policies have led to other reductions in earnings: less overtime, less work for married women (the real unemployment figure is much higher because this is not taken into account in the Government's figures) less chance for bonuses, etc. The employers will tell you that there has also been a reduction in profits ( although the latest figures issued by the Financial Times show that profits are now rising again) but this does not take into account several factors:
Firstly, in many cases total profits have not gone down at all, only dividends. During a period of so-called restraint man employers use the odd dodge of holding back increases in dividends until the pressure is off. Secondly, there is a big difference between wages and profits as a form of income, The average worker needs = and spends - most of his money each week for bare necessities and a small amount on luxury; the employer, on the other=hand, senerally has a much hisher standard of living and uses the bulk of his income for re~investment to make more profit. ‘hen profits go dow, a few businesses may <o broke but the employers do not ¢o hungry. You very seldom sce one of your old bosses joining you at the Labour Bxchange. Thirdly, most companies employ people full time to play around with the figures of their profits to reduce tax liability. Thus one never knows the true level of profits of a firm. The worker's income, on the other hand, is completely known through Pay-!s You-Earn. This is why no income policy can be fair while the employer's books are not open.
The wage freeze ~ even if it accompanied by a dividend freeze - is biased against those who earn/living by wages and salaries, But this Government is so pro-employer that it hasn't even gone through the pretence of subjecting profits and dividends to the same restraint as wases. The policy of trying to hold dowm wages needs abolishing altogether. Formulae about agreeing to a wage freeze if the employers get the same treatment are no benefit whatsover, This Labour Government has gone farther in attacking the trade unions than any other for decades. It is monstrous that the party which was created to defend trade unions should now be the party to take the initiative in attacking them. Whilst we have an economy which is dominated by private ownership, trade unions must be completely free and there must be no restrictions on the right to strike. The experience of those countries where capitalism has been destroyed shows that the trace unions must retain their independence even under these circumstances. A SLIDING SCALE OF VAGES TO COMPENSAT? FOR INCREAS “S IN TH? COST OF LIVING
It is totally unfair that if prices rise - through devaluation or stop~-o ~ that workers should suffer a cut in their standard of living. The employers have an easy solution whem their costs go up - they simply put up their prices. Workers have to struggle through their unions for wage increases just to maintain their standards. “ometimes months, even years elapse between the time of a claim for higher waves and a settlement. Thus for a whole period there has been a cut in living standards. This should be stonpved by a sliding scale of waces to automatically meet any increase
in the cost of living. Trade unionists should insist thet all agreements have this provision. However, the sliding scale of wages would not serve this function while + we have the present cost of living index. A trade union commission should examine the cost of living index and demand one which reflects the costs of the average worker (unlike the present one which is based upon middle class expenditure. )
Employers and the Government will say that by insisting upon the sliding scale of wages that workers are creating a wages/ prices spiral. This is nonsense. The major reason for inflation is not increased wages but the huge Government arms expenditure and the ever-rising bank rate.