HOLIDAYS ON PAY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21973, 23 December 1936, Page 8

HOLIDAYS ON PAY

LABOUR UNION’S

REQUEST DISCUSSION BY DRAINAGE BOARD MEMBER ALLEGES “TEAMWORK” A recommendation the works committee that the Christchurch Drainage Board should pay, during the Christmas holidays, its share of the wages of the men engaged on the Durham street sewer, drew spirited opposition from the chairman of the finance committee, Mr H. G. Livingstone, at the meeting of the board last evening. Mi Livingstone said Labour members of the board were making more and more demands in favour of the board's employees, and he felt the time had come when the boaid should adopt a definite stand and say that such things must come to a stop. , , .. In moving the adoption of. the works committee’s report, the chaii man of the committee, Mr J- S. , nett, said the Canterbury General Labourers’ Union had asked the board to grant holidays on pay Jo the men employed on Duiha street, as it was understood that the Christchurch City Council was granting this privilege to the sub sidised men in its employ. Mr nett added that the men employed on Durham street were unemployed men whose employment was subsidised by the Government to the extent of £2 5s a man weekly, ana as the cost to the board would be only about £6O in all, he considered the expenditure was one which the board could well undertake. “I realise it is quite impossible to oppose any proposal for an in wages by this board, said Mr Liv ingstone. “There is a deal of team-work going on and it seems that the gentlemen of the Labour P ai W. with the assistance of our friend, Mr Hill: I rise to a point of order, M Th^ h chairman, Mr W. R.. Carey: I think that Mr Livingstone might withdraw his reference to the Labour party, and substitute “the Government. Mr Hill: As far as I am awaie, alter many years’ service, we have never worked in parties on this board. Mr Livingstone: That is quite true, or at least it was until the last election. Since then it has definitely been a question of parties. Cost of Increases Continuing, Mr Livingstone said he had brought the question up because he was chairman of the finance committee. At the end of last year the rates had been increased, and the people who paid the rates were the owners of small homes, and they felt the extra payment very severely. HJ nearly every case the increases granted by the board to its employees went beyond the terms set down in definite agreements which had been concluded between the board and is servants. So far these increases had cost the board £695 per annum. The Hon. G. R. Hunter: Private employers are paying the higher wages { °Mr Livingstone said that before the payment of the extra sum was granted he thought the board should examine the proposals to see whether they were reasonable. Every meeting of the board had seen some proposal for increased wages brought forward. At the previous meeting of the board permission for a smoko, at a c ° st ~ 10s lOd a week, had been granted to men who already had the right to smoke all day on the ]ob. He wished to warn the board that its overhead charges were being increased and were gradually creeping up, and he wished members to give serious consideration to the position. . - . The chairman said he appreciated Mr Livingstone’s argument. On tno other hand the proposal was in accordance with what was being done or suggested throughout the Dominion. Mr T. M. Milliken supported Mr Livingstone, saying that members of the board would realise that the ratepayers had to be considered. The board was the trustee of their interests. He thought serious consideration should be given before the board lightly made any such concessions as those pioposed. “It would be nice to be popular with the men, but one feels that one's duty is to the great body of ratepayers.” Mr Milliken added. Assistance from Government Mr J. W. Beanland said that while he was in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Mr Livingstone and Mr Milliken. the Government was providing the larger share of the men s wages. He thought the men should be given the small concession asked for in order that thev might take advantage of the extra "money offered by the Government. The concession was one which, at this time of the year, the board could gracefully extend without unduly straining its conscience. Mr Barnett said it was quite obvious that Mr Livingstone, with all his experience, did not know how an enterprise of the nature of the Durham street sewer could be successfully carried out. The essentials were scientific management, modern appliances and the co-operation of the staff. “I think this work will prove to be one of the most paying and the most economical jobs the board has done,” he added. “I venture to predict that the job will be finished at a cost at least £IOOO within the engineer’s estimate.” “I also, like Mr Milliken, claim to be a trustee of the people,” Mr Barnett added, “and I try to exercise the duties that devolve on me in that capacity. I seem to remember Mr Milliken using the same expression last evening at the meeting of the City Council when he was replying to charges of squandering the people’s money. I want to suggest to him that he has never yet voted for a proposal that has meant more money to the board than the present one. As for Mr Livingstone’s suggestions, I repudiate the inference that some of us squander the board’s money. We believe that what we are doing is in the interests of the ratepayers and that they will ultimately benefit from it.”

The chairman: I must say the debates of this board have* not been onesided. Members have not sought merely to tear each other to pieces, and their contributions to any discussion have always been animated by their own best thoughts on the subject. Mr Milliken; Having heard Mr Barnett’s explanation, I would like to state publicly that I am quite prepared to vote for the proposal. The recommendation was then adopted.