Railway Workers' Demands.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16357, 31 October 1918, Page 6

Railway Workers' Demands.

Wo believe that tho public generally sympathise with tho railway workers, whoso occupation - is undoubtedly of a, very arduous and trying nature, and is intimately bound up with the public convenience and welfafe. We believe that the desire of the public is that they should be fairly treated. This being so, it-seems to us that the Executive of the New Zealand Locomotive Engineers', Firemen, and Cleaners' Association have made a serious blunder in tactics, to say nothing of tho moral impropriety of the proceeding, in publishing the covert threats contained in the official statement of the men's grievances. In that document they state that the men are "tired of the " old method of adjusting their com- " plaints"—which in anothor passage is described as "the cap-in-hand policy," and there are distinct suggestions of a secret ballot and a resort to force if the demands of the men for a considerable increase in wages ar© not concoded. In common fairness and candour we must tell the railway employees, and indeed tho great body of Government servants and municipal employees as a whole, that the public who are their real employers, and ultimately have to find the money to pay them, are not disposed to submit any longer to the methods of the highwayman and footpad being introduced into the business relations of life. They are at all times prepared to listen to reason, and to do the fair thing, but they distinctly resent having a pistol levelled at their heads by men -who are drawing a secure livelihood out of public money, and who threaten, in effect, that if they are nob given more, they will disorganise an important public service and. inflict as much loss, inconvenience, and, indeed, suffering upon the publio as they can or dare. Tho action of the representatives of the locomotive engineers, firemen, and cleaners is the more indefensible, because, as the official statement admits, the Council agreed "with the Minister that no demands would be pushed for during the war. They now state that this agreement was entered into "un"der the sincere, belief that everyone "in the oommunity would do the same, " but now they find that farmers and "others of their ilk have been pressing the Government, and have used "the war to further their own ends." Honest labour, we feel sure, will repudiate as strongly as we do the doctrine that wrong doing on the part of one section of the community is justifiable | if it can be proved that another section of the community is doing wrong also. If it were contended that because "Germany acted as if the Troaty regarding Belgium were a "scrap of paper" England is justified in breaking any engagement she may have entered into, we feel sure that the Executive of the Railway Engineers', Firemen, and Cleaners' Association would be the first to protest against so monstrous a proposition. In fairness- to the farmers, however, it should be stated that there is no instance of their making any demands under menace upon tne rest of their community. On the contrary, they have accepted for their main products the price fixed by the Imperial Government, and in the case of wool a very large number of them are voluntarily agreeing to hand over for the benefit of British seamen a proportion of the proceeds to which they are entitled under' their agreement. It is true that in the process of price-fixing there had to be negotiations with the New Zealand Government as representing the Imperial authorities, and that a section of the farmers tried to improve the bargain from their own point of view. It is only fair to add that the majority ot tho farming community havo disapproved of these attempts, and have expressed their entire readiness to accept the prices fixed by the Imperial Government. We do not suggest that' the agreement made bv the railway employees with the Minister at the beginning of

the war precludes them from bringing before the management any grievances under which they conceive themselves to be labouring, or even to prefer any reasonable request for more pay. It does preclude them from taking advantage of the war to hold a pistol at the head of the community. As a matter of fact, they have not refrained from making representations, which have always been attentively listened to, and as a result of those representations they have already been granted two war bonuses, the net result of which is that the married men have received an increase of 2s a day and single men Is a day. It may be, with the altered conditions brought about by the war, that they are now justly entitled to a further increase. The Minister and the Cabinet should go carefully into this question and do the fair thing. It is absurd, of course, for tlie men to claim, as they do, that because the Department at very great expense has installed larger engines and thereby effected economies in working, the men are entitled to all the savings as an increase in wages. We should also question the contention that the cost of living is less in Australia than it is in New Zealand, and therefore the men are entitled to "not " less than the best wnges paid to the "men in Australia." The fairest way of arriving at what is just is to compare the rates with the wages paid outside the Department for similar work, having regard to the security of tenure and continuity of employment enjoyed by the railway workers. If : t is true' that any considerable proportion of competent workers have been leaving the Department becauso they can get better pay outside, that is prima facie ground for concluding that the men are justly entitled to some increase.