ONE OF THE PORTERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 51, 29 February 1916, Page 9

ONE OF THE PORTERS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —One correspondent, by mentioning some no-work-no-pay agreement, wilfully endeavours to make it appear that railwaymen get paid for time they do not work. How this erroneous impression that railwaymen can start and knock off when they choose gained currency is hard to conceive. Conditions are just the opposite in the service. The Department knows this, and has attempted to quieten the men most affected by sending, relief men to relieve them for: a day. or so every week. The voice of the tablet porter calling for overtime or recognition of long hours worked is the lever that to-day is driving the men to desperation. Railwaymen certainly receive from their masters, and they appreciate them." But they say even in the granting of privileges an unfair distinction is made between the. first and second division. An ordinary ; clerk is allowed 10/- night allowance when away from home; the highest officer in the second division is allowed 5/-. Is there not room for discontent? In other respects the Department is no more liberal than the ordinary business company. The Union Steamship Company allows its men two to four weeks'' holiday and a free pass on its steamers. The banks, gasworks, ajid Kauri Timber Company are at present making up the pay of men who have enlisted from their ranks. The Railway is not doing this. The ordinary tradesman'or labourer is given a holiday on every public festival day; if he works he draws double pay, and receives overtime for all night work.' Railwaymen work their hardest on holidays, and get nothing extra for night work.

Conversing with a guard to-day convinced mc that the breaking point is just about reached. 'Tis apparent the men have some action of a drastic character" in view. If complications arise in 'the working of •the service they say the blame is on the controlling officials. The men assert that the maximum amount of loyalty and efficiency' is demanded from them and the minimum amount of consideration shown in return. All they ask for is a living wage. The impression is prevalent that this class of work is the last thing that a labourer can aspire to. Such is not the case. The highest paid officer in the second division —a first-grade guard—does not get £180 a year in wages. Only 176 men with from 14 to 36 years' service receive this princely emolument. Is that ample remuneration for such faithful service? Mr. Russell and Mr, Herries do not think so. The former thinks that all abourers should receive more than a livjiig : wage as he told the enginemen in Christchurch. The Minister of Railways, is with the men in spirit. What is troubling him is where to get the money from to give them a living wage. Had he thought of this before and made a more equitable distribution in wages of the profits of the service he would not have bee n confronted wijth. this difficulty now. In the first division one man's salary is £3,000 a year, two more men receive £1,000 each, six men receive i/00 or more, four men receive £600 or more, 16 men receive £500 or more, 56 men receive £400 or more, 99 men receive tJOQ or more, 900 men receive £200 or more. Surely a concern paving such salaries must be unsound as a business proposition if it cannot afford to "ive its workmen an extra 1/- a day when necessity demands it.—l am, etc., W. MADIGAN, ... Ex; Railway Employee.