TRAMWAY DUTY ROSTER.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20551, 20 May 1932, Page 13

TRAMWAY DUTY ROSTER.

TO THE. EDITOR 0» VBXS3. Sir,—Now that the tramway strike is over t would like to make a few ob- - ' servations on the system of booking the men on duty. I believe that prior to the strike, the men had a real grievance in this stand-by week, which I jam informed compelled them to be about the sheds, or within call, for as much as sixteen hours in order to get eight working hours in. If that was the case, then, in my opinion, it is indefensible; There is something radically wrong with a, system of rostering which allows that. Why can't the roster be so arranged as to permit men to work their eight hours, or four hours, as the case may be, and then be.off duty for the rest of-the day] One has only to look- at the system of rostering.adopted by the railways to inow that it is not impossible to do this. Men are booked on for a minimum of four hours, and it is only a matter of adjusting the long, short, awl medium "flays to make each gang's wort equal to forty-four hours a week. In the tramway system, where the men-can . be relieved almost at any time, X tail to see where any difficulty could come in to accomplish etc., EOSTEB. May 16th, 1938. • TThe genera* manager.of the Christr church Mr Frank Thompson, states that, working conditions on «» tramways are not «"£™ ■■» JJ? . railway service, since tra/nwaymeii are required to work not less than eight hours a day, while railwaymen may do . a shorter day and average the work . ov« a period! He added that the state- , Tut that men had to wait about ta * hours to get in a day* work was not correct.]- * J