CHANGE WANTED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 74, 29 March 1938, Page 11

CHANGE WANTED.

WORKERS' DEMANDS.

COMPUTING EARNINGS

LINOTYPE PIECE OPERATORS

(F>y Telrjrrn|ili.— Tress Assorint ion.)

AVKIJ.IXCTON". Mondav

An application to the Arbitration Court to amend two clause.* of the New Zealand typographers' award of December 2.'!. 1 !).'!(>. waf made to-dav hv Mr.

K. Baxter, representing the workers. Mr. Justice O'Kegau presided, and the employers were represented by Mr. J. M. Hardcastle.

The clause on wliit h amendment ; • was sought dealt with the method of computing the earnings of linotype piece ' ( operators, and tho other with the night' rate allowance to linoty|>e piece opera-!, tors. On December !>. 1037. said Mr. . Baxter, agreement was reached on th? clauses in two Dominion awards covering! the printing industry, with the exception j of these two clauses. 1 The workers, lip added, asked that j the method of computation of earnings I he according to the point system. This j was the only system of ca Icula t ion in 1 operation in Australia, England and ; other countries. j Persistent Demand. Linotype piece operators had not received a restoration of the wage cut j of I!>:}(). So dissat istied were they with I the present method -of calculating their j output that all question of a return to I the 1 O'iO money bar-is had been entirely | overshadowed by the per-i~t cut. demand, for the reintrodiiction of the point ; system. | (")n tho question of tho night rate . allowance to linotype piece operators. | Mr. Baxter said tho employers sought 1 to reduce this allowance from one-tenth ' extra on their weekly earnings to a flat maximum rate of 10/. An amendment of this clause of 2."> years' standing was. he contended, a counter-claim to the efforts of the linotype piece operators to win hack tho point system of computing their earnings, lost over eight years ago. It was not considered, by the workers' organisation that the present night rate was unreasonable. In reply to the first application, Mr. Hardcastle said the workers' organisation proposed a departure from the existing system. The employers opposed the proposal on 10 grounds, which he enumerated. An Artificial Method. The workers' organisation was asking for the measurement of output of machine type-setting by an artificial ! method which had no relation to the . actual work done. A falae ini-asuremeiit j of output would he given, and injustice would be done all round. Injustice would \ t>e done to the workers concerned, because of inequality of payments lor their work. | The fairness of the present method ] of measuring output had been estab- . lished by investigation and practical operation. This view had been taken J hv the Court. Piecework earnings were j indeed more than fair, and they were positively excessive. The average earnings last year were £8 IS/ a week, and the average weekly working hours less than 36.

Pieceworkers were able to earn 40 per cent more under the present system than weekly wage earners, and worked 10 per cent shorter hours. It was (submitted that there was not the slightest justification for the claims. Dealing with the employers' proposal to pay an allowance of up to 10/ for night piece operators, Mr. Hardeastle sa?d the allowance for all other workers employed on night shift was 10 per cent of tli." weekly wage, with a maximum of 10/. The allowance was made as compensation for the inconvenience of working at night. This inconvenience, he submitted, was no greater for pieceworkers than for weekly wage workers. lln most offices it was less. Decision was reserved.