Bus dispute

Press, 16 December 1985, Page 12

Bus dispute

Sir,—According to P. J. Nisbet, the long established tramways award, which is freely negotiated between employers and employees every year, keeps his income low. Yet the experienced and skilled, advocates of the Tramways Union agreed to the award before a judge. Would P. J. Nisbet explain why a

State-linked award, satisfactory in June 1985, requires a wage addition of $25 per week in August, to be subsequently boosted to $32 in October? If Auckland had avoided giving $l3 a week by cancelling the articulated buses, would there ever have been a fierce demand for $32 per week outside the award? Now the C.T.B. is a municipal organistion, built up on penny fares and belonging to the people of Christchurch. And to strike and deny the people public transport at Christmas is a provocation which could have severe long-term repercussions. The employers’ advocate says bring next year’s award tabes forward to February 1986, as’ a basis for settlement. Why not?—Yours, etc PATRICK NEARY. December 14, 1985.

Sir,—At last Patrick Neary has mentioned the real issue in the bus drivers’ dispute: whether they need the allowance they are seeking. He asks whether I am “claiming that most of the population cannot live without doing considerable overtime or having their spouses working.” That is precisely what I am claiming. Two-thirds . of/ wage earners earn less than;the average wage. Household income:and expenditure surveys show household incomes considerably in excess of the average wage — and expenditures in excess of incomes. In other words, most households require, overtime, two incomes, moonlighting, or living in debt to maintain themselves. Bus drivers earn below the average wage. Social welfare agencies in Christchurch can tell Mr Neary of the grinding poverty that exists here. All Auckland bus drivers and cleaners, whether or not they drive articulated buses, have been given an allowance: why not Christchurch too?—Yours, etc.

BILL ROSENBERG. December 15, 1985.