Railway union replies

Press, 20 January 1984, Page 12

Railway union replies

The Canterbury Branch of the National Union of Railwaymen has questioned statements made in a leading article in “The Press” on January 17, “Reporting on the railways.” The secretary of the branch, Mr P. S. Corliss, writes: “You recall that an unfair joke has existed for years concerning over-staffing on the railways. Then you proceed to perpetuate this myth by being, once more, ‘disquietingly persistent.’

“At no time has our union said that manning levels are high, as you maintain. In fact the reverse is the case and some services suffer accordingly. In approximately four years, the membership of our union alone has been slashed by some 1800 jobs, a process that is continu-

ing. The 130,000 unemployed is the gross “inefficiency” in this country that demands rectifying immediately, not the economic and tragic insanity of pursuing job losses as a way of life. “At no stage were we requested to be a contributory part of any survey nor were there any discussions with any Railway Unions before the Booz-Allen Hamilton appointment In fact Mr Papps and Mr Hayward were tripping around overseas when the consultants were hired and their terms of reference already confirmed. They deigned to inform us some time after their return.

“Ninety-nine per cent of their work was performed in a room full of computers. Places visited by the consultants were minimal and time spent there would have only sufficed for a cold coffee. %We had no intentions oicom-

plicity in our members’ potential decimation.

“Let me assure you, and the ‘sceptics’ you mention, who may suspect that our desire to view the results of the study stems from a desire for confrontation rather than co-operation, that our desire is solely that our members may be forearmed of contents that will most assuredly have a major effect on their family, job and security. “However, if we are kept in a fearful environment of ignorance, confrontation may well be thrust upon us.” [On April 11, last year, the day before the consultants arrived in New Zealand to begin their study, “The Press” printed a news item that reported the views of Mr

Corliss and of the vice-president of the Railway Tradesmen’s Association, Mr Royce Broderick, on the use of consultants to make the study. Mr Broderick was quoted as saying: “We all agree there have to be changes, that there is overmanning, but we can solve these problems ourselves.” As far as we are aware, Mr Corliss did not seek to dissociate his union from this statement at that time; nor has he sought to do so on any of the three intervening occasions that this view has been ascribed collectively to the railway unions in the columns of this newspaper, as it was, for the fifth time, in the editorial article to which Mr Corliss objects. His objection, however, has now been noted. — Editor.]