THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1984. On the wrong track

Press, 2 May 1984, Page 14

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1984. On the wrong track

A tragedy for the Railways Corporation — and a source of despair for the public that it is meant to serve — is that every attempt to reduce wastage or inefficiency seems doomed to spark off another round of damaging and costly dissension. The latest flare-up is a threat of industrial action by the National Union of Railwaymen if some of their members are made redundant by changes to the timetable of the Christchurch to Picton service. The corporation has decided that 48 jobs will go as a result of the changes. Some of the jobs are vacant now and simply will not be filled. Thirty railway workers in Picton, Blenheim, and Kaikoura will lose their jobs, however, after taking accumulated annual leave and being offered voluntary redundancies. The national dispute over redundancies on the line, of which the union warned yesterday, seems inevitable.

A deal of sympathy can be felt for the railway staff who will become redundant, particularly for those who do not have the option of an early retirement offset by paid annual leave that has accumulated over the years. Blind obstruction to the changes — indeed to any changes — can be only selfdefeating in the long run, however, and the union’s adherence to such tactics could jeopardise the security of employment of a great many more of its members. The union view is put plainly by the general secretary, Mr D. C. Goodfellow, when he says that the example of redundancies on this service might lead to other changes and other redundancies elsewhere, and that the union is not going to let

the corporation start the process. The response, he says, will be to hurt the corporation as much as possible without hurting the union. This is a contradiction. If the corporation is hurt, if its business is harmed, or if customers are turned away or lost to other freight carriers, less work is available for union members. The railway system in New Zealand is facing perhaps its toughest challenge ever from coastal shippers, long-distance trucking firms, and air transport, all of whom are vying for a share of the business. Disruption to rail services by a continual procession of strikes and stoppages can only drive custom away from the Railways, custom that they can illafford to lose. The corporation must strive for efficiency and competitiveness; inevitably this will require still more changes, and almost certainly it will mean more staff cuts. A desire by the union to ensure that those of its members who are made redundant are treated fairly by an equitable redundancy agreement is right and proper. A policy of biting the hand that feeds it will earn the union no friends and endanger more jobs than it protects. After years in which the railways coasted along, protected, but irritating many customers because of cost and inefficiencies, a campaign has begun to win back public support. An understanding of the difficulties of the railways, and respect for their desire to meet these, has probably raised public regard for the system higher than it has been for a long time. Damaging any revived esteem at this stage seems to endanger the efforts to keep the system going.