RAILWAY SERVANTS' GRIEVANCES

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1192, 29 July 1911, Page 4

RAILWAY SERVANTS' GRIEVANCES

Now that Parliament is sitting we hope to see members bestirring themselves to gcfc to the bottom of. the complaints which havo been piling up for months past in connection with the treatment of employees in tlie service of the State Railways. The excuse has been put forward, in reply to the grievances ventilated, that' it is inevitable that where so many men arc employed grievances, real or imaginary, will exist; and those proffering this explanation would have the public believe that the discontent amongst railway employees can be satisfactorily disposed of in. this summary fashion. .No one who knows anything of the real facts, however, is likely to be misled by this ilimsy attempt to gloss over a very serious situation. If the complaints came from a few malcontents there might be some excuse for adopting this attitude, but the •unfortunate thing about the position of tho'ilailway Service to-day is that it is not merely individuals here and there who are suffering injustice, but practically all through the service men are being overworked and under-paid; or else they have some other ground of complaint calculated to discourage them in their work and militate against the general efficiency of this vitally important Department of the State. The Minister for llailways has displayed a praiseworthy desire to make the railways of the _ country self-supporting, but in striving to attain that end he has become responsible for a condition of affah'3 that is prejudicial to the railways and a reflection on the State as an employer! He has starved the railways, "and his Department has wrung profits out of the pockets of the railway employees. In our news columns to-day we publish an article taken from the Railway Officers' Advocate in which certain' aspects of this question of profit-making at the expense of the employees of the railways arc discussed in detail. We would commend this article to tho attention of our readers because it gives a number of specific cases illustrating the manner in which the values of given positions in the service have been cut down at the expense of the staff; and' other cases, which arc said to be typical, disclosing the excessive hours which railway officers are in places called on to work in order to swell the railway surplus. Mr. Millar is challenged to answer the charges made in the article under review, but judging 'from past experience ho will deem it a wiser policy to maintain a deep and lasting silence. He has not yet answered the questions put to him respecting his son's appointment to a special post in the llailway Service; and it is unlikely that he will be drawn into any attempt to reply to tho charges now laid at the door of his Department. And yet ho is the servant of the people who own the railways and who have every right to know how their employees arc being treated. The railways arc tho people's property, not, Mn. MnxAii's, and what right has he to maintain silence whore his stewardship is challenged ? Does he think the public support him in the policy pursued by his Department of squeezing a little extra profit out of their railways at the cost of over-working or under-paying their employees'!

The current issue of the Railway Review, another railway publication, contains a reference to recent shunting fatalities, and incidentally mentions a matter which, though small enough in itself, is important as throwing light on the grudging spirit in which tho reasonable requests of the railway employees are met. The following letter explains itself:

Wellington, July 10, 1911. Hon. J. A. Millar, Minister for Haihvays, Wellington.

Sir,—We havo repeatedly brought under your notice the question of porters performing shunting duties at the lower rate of pay, and have on two occasions been informed by yourself that porters emploved for half their time as shunters would bo paid as such. This promise has not yet boon given effect to, and as a result many men are suffering in consequence. 1 would particularly draw your attention to the last two fatal accidents at Mnsterton anil Hawera.

\\'o li.-ul previously asked that porters shunting at both of these stations should be paid as shunters, and was refused. As a result, the widows of these men (if thev oloct to bke a lump sum under the Work'. ,ts' CoinpeiiKitioii for Accidents Act) will not receive the amount under I he .Act. that they otherwise would have done had their lms-baiuls been paid as shunters. Another porter who was employed ns a shunter at Maslcrton has been off with •m injured foot for some months, and ins wceklv accident allowance is also less Ihan it ihoiild be. I.would tlunk you tn sr,o that your promise t.q us is given effect to as early m possible, so that

other men ami widows will not suffer in tho way 1 have almvly indicated.

I am, ■■!<•., M. .1. MACK, (OniM'iil Secretary). Here is a case where the Minister is stated to have twice promised to place porters who du a certain amount of shunting work on the same footing as shunters. The shunting work is risky work and probably (hose who engage in it spasmodically really incur greater ribk than those who are regularly employed iit it. .But even after the Minister has promised that justice will be done, as recorded above, the performance of the promise is delayed and men continue to suffer injustice and their families are penalised when as unfortunately sometimes happens, accidents occur. The difference in pay in this case is, we believe, sixpence per day—a small enough sum iu itself, but of material importance to the men concerned. It is worthy of notice that both at Mastcrton and Hawera, where the recent fatal shunting accidents occurred, the Kailway Servants' Society had previously applied to have the porters engaged in shunting work at these stations paid as shunters, but the Department refused this request. Tho widows, although their husbands were killed at shunting work, received only the compensation based on a porter's rate of pay. These are but illustrations of the spirit which pervades the management of the railways to-day. Mil. Millar disdains to answer criticism unless it pleases him and apparently imagines that he can silence the railway servants by his promise to scatter amongst them on the eve of a general election £50,000 to compensate them for past injustices. The writer in the Railway Advocate. by the way, points out that. £30,000 of this will be absorbed in meeting the ordinary scale increases, so that the balance of £20,000 will not go very far. But Mr. Millar cannot smother up the past in this way; nor is his promise on the eve of an election any guarantee for the future when the election is over. We hope to see the railways management one of the subjects very fully investigated during the session now entered on, and a beginning in this direction might be made next week with a few questions to the Minister based on the points raised in the article published in our issue to-day.