The £6 pay limit, so enthusiastically advocated by Government leaders and the representatives of the capitalist class, serves one specific purpose - to drive down the living standards of the working Take the case of a married man with two children who in February 1975 got a pay increase that raised his gross earnings to £50 - about the average gross earnings for male mannal workers. His take-home pay after taking into account the effects of the April Budget would amount to £40.03.
Because of the 12-month rulme unal is part or me Governments measures, such a worker would not be entitled to another rise until February 1976. With the annual rate of inflation likely to be still running at 20 per cent, his £40.03 would then be worth only £33.36 at February 1975 prices - giving an average real pay over the year of £36.60.
The full £6 increase would only raise his take-home pay by £3.57 after tax and deductions, making £43.60 - £36.33 at February 1975 prices. In other words. the full f6 - and many less organised workers may well get below this - would have allowed him to get less than half way back to his real pay of a And what of the following year? Immediately his real wages would begin to fall again as inflation continued. Even if Healey Dy some maracie managed to get inflation down to 8 per cent by February 1977, this worker's real wage would still have been reduced to £33.64 by that time.
This would mean that his aver age real wage over the year would have sunk to around 35- another 4½ per cent cut on his previous year's average of £36.60.
It is doubtful if Healey even in his most euphoric moments seriously believes that inflation can be reduced to anything like 8 percent in that period. It is far more likely that the cut in real wages for such a worker would be at least double ne toures quoted For the low paid the situation 40.03 36-60 prices Feb 1975+- → Feb 1976+ 20%% to fall ever if rate of inflation is reduced 1 could be even more drastic. commercial firm Regional Surveys says that the average pay of the lowest paid can onlv be maintained providing they get a 37½ percent increase. I mis is une only way tnat this group of workers can keep up --- average annudi redi pay 36:33 35•00 33-64 ·33:36 prices - rIse → Feb 1977 Average annual real wage will continue with the 30 percent increase in consumer prices over me last vear The Survey spells out that in unat ume lving standards nave div ed by 5½ per cent. With the £6 limit for the poorly paid being an almost impossible target - they are poorly paid because of their lack of bargaining strength - they are faced with even worse cuts.
The Labour Government is callously prepared to sacrifice the living standards of the working class in order to prop up British capitalism. Last Suly the Child Poverty Action Group reported 700,000 parents go to bed hungry once a fortnight so that their children canbe fed.
According to Frank Field, director of the CPAG, Britain's five million poor eat less than the safety level for good health. It Healey's pay laws will consign these peopie to ever greater depr vation. Poverty, illness and suffering will grow as the result of the deliberate policies of the Wilson leadership. Furthermore these laws will swell that already alarming figure of five million to even greater proportions.
The testimony of right-wing Labour and the bankruptcy of re lorEs Is Dens written in bigge slums, hungry families, social inequality and misery for ever grow ing sections of the working class.
This can only be fought by the labour movement struggling for a £40 minimum wage for all - pensioners, unempoved ano tie sick and infirm. Linked to that must be the demand that for every single one point rise in the cost of living, there should be an automatic increase of 70p on every wage.
The alternative to that is crushing defeat and suffering for millions of people. What is more, it will open the road for the return of the Tories and even more savage cuts.
parliamentary democracy or workers democracy? red weekly 2 october 1975