MARGIN FOR SKILL R.T.A. Claiming 54¼ Per Cent

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31247, 20 December 1966, Page 1

MARGIN FOR SKILL R.T.A. Claiming 54¼ Per Cent

(N.Z. Press Association)

WELLINGTON, December 19. A 2s 6d an hour wage rise for railway tradesmen was sought today by the Railway Tradesmen’s Association before the Railways Industrial Tribunal. The claim, which would increase the margin for skill in the railways from 23.036 per cent to 54.45 per cent, was presented by the R.T.A. president, Mr J. R. Ritchie. The claim arises from a Supreme Court decision that the tribunal has the power to fix wage rates on surveys Of outside industry, on which railway wages have been based in recent years. Mr Ritchie said the policy of the R.T.A. was that there should be a minimum margin of 50 per cent over the wage rate of a labourer for the skill and responsibility of an indentured tradesman. This was the margin existing in 1901 when the requirements of theoretical and practical training and attainment were not as high as they are today. If the tribunal awarded an additional margin of 2s IJd this would provide exactly a 50 per cent margin. The 2s 6d claimed would increase the margin to 54.45 per cent The small excess would be some small compensation for the lower margins which had obtained in New Zealand for many years. Ho said an indentured

tradesman in the railways earned less during his career than a worker in the railways who did not undertake an apprenticeship.

Earnings Compared After five years an apprentice had earned £2728, compared with the £3820 earned by a non-apprentice on minimum award rate. After 10 years the tradesman had earned £7BlB, compared with the £8506 earned by the non-tradesman who had progressed through the skilled labourer’s rate to become a machine-moulder, welder or similar worker. After 40 years the tradesman, with the present margin over the non-tradesman, was still behind—£3B,3s6 compared with £38,656. The indentured tradesman compared his. skills in practice and theory with those of

the worker, who no matter what his excellence was in a restricted part of the trade, still performed o _ ly part of the trade. A result of the present wage policy must be over-all mediocrity, a fate which must overtake the community unless authorities faced up to adequate skill margins.

“Rough Justice’’ Criticising the present method of a ruling rate survey of outside industry, Mr Ritchie said it amounted to “rough justice.” Tradesmen found their position static amidst considerable movement.

The department, at present, was forced to “farm out” work to outside industry to be done by tradesmen frequently earning more than railway tradesmen, and on top of that paying for the profits of the private firms. At present, the department retained only half the tradesmen who completed their apprenticeship in the railways. This was not good business, at a time when the department was increasing its business. The staffing situation was now critical, and the department was “coasting along with a Micawber outlook.”

Mr M. Adamson, advocate for the department, said an increase in the margin to 2s

6d an hour would cost the Railways Department almost £500,000 a year. He said the claim was apparently based on the tradesmen’s value in the community. It was quite evident, however, that this view did not coincide with the actual position.

If it was granted, the R.T.A. claim would step the tradesmen’s rate up to 12s 3jd an hour instead of the present 9s 9Jd. The average trade rate in the 1966 ruling rates survey was 9s 8.474 d. The department considered the rates of remuneration and conditions of employment of tradesmen to be fairly related to outside industry. Any suggestion that the rates should be fixed higher than those generally prevailing in industry would inevitably lead to a “wage war.”

Differential Rates Mr Adamson said a reasonable balance must be kept between State department rates and outside rates, particularly as there was over-full employment. Private industry needed labour, as did the State departments, and any increase in the State department rates in an attempt to outbid private employers in bargaining for labour, would merely raise the general level of wage rates at

which the bargaining commenced.

The answer to the problem was for the State departments to pay differential rates, according to trade and locality. This would, however, create more difficulties, and was not viewed favourably by the R.T.A. or other service organisations. It would be difficult to confine increases granted to railway employees, as employees in other State departments would expect similar adjustments in their rates of pay, Mr Adamson said. The increase claimed would not cure the staffing position in the railways and would not increase the number of tradesmen available to fill the requirements of New Zealand industry, including Government departments, he said. The hearing will continue tomorrow.