The proposed - reduction is really far less open to ob-
jection in fact than in name. The proposal refers only to the minimum percentage and nOt to the subsistence wage nor to the actual wage to be paid under normal conditions. In short the reduction would affect only the higher paid men 'earning " on a minimum " up to 4 and over. And the Report puts forward various remedial devices, as, for instance, the proposal for giving all the miners, and not only the piece-rate workers, an interest in output, the proposal for family allowances (by which some men might get back more than they lost) and the proposal for profit-sharing. All these things which are not worked out in detail in the Report are closely interlocked with the wages question. That is why we are intensely anxious for a discussion which will neces- sarily be difficult and-technical to begin as soon as possible. There is no question of wages being cut in order to in- crease the owners' profits. The Commissioners foresaw cons that the owners would have to put up for a -iderable- . . . . . 16-51 • time without adequate profits- and without any profits at all in-most districts.
