THE MINING DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3090, 22 May 1917, Page 6

THE MINING DISPUTE

OWNERS' REPLY TO THE FEDERATION

SMALL DIVIDENDS EARNED

/'■By Telegraph-Press Associatijm. m , Auckland, Mav 21. '«. ■ ! » nsiTei, of the coal mine owners to the statement made kst week' by tlio Coal Rimers Federation m regard to the re- . tent conference and. the statement previously issued,- says the owners published J, clear statement of wiat took place, and !wA 1 "''' representatives admit t i? e , 6tateme nt is accurate as ■*» what . aotually happened at the meeting. What really happened was that.tho federation ' • T sW| sen wtiTes presented again the whole v comprising 17 clauses. brought forward at the previous conference, and three additional clauses. Now, teaoh of these 17 clauses was discussed in ,the utmost detail at the previous conference, wmoh lasted for eight days. As no change in regard to the federation's demands has taken place since the previous ■'■ conference, the owners are of exactly the same opinion now as then, and it'must Ibe obvious that no purple of any. kind .except to waste time could be served by further discussing whnt hnd beeu considered in every detail for eight days The ■mere fact that they had at the urgent (demand of the Government agreed to meet the federation could not commit .them to further tedious and useless discussion. The additional clauses submitted we merely amplifications of some of ' tn « original 17 clauses. Had really fresh conditions been advanced, the owners would _ have given them full con- :■ sideration. at is preposterous to .say the meeting was not a conference. . J.he question of -wages was the all-imnort- . : ant one, m regard, to which the owners -/made a most liberal proposal, which ■•■,. amounted to a further 7J per cent, for ■ coal hewers and 10 per cent, for wa»es ..-. men, m addition it should "be .- remembered, to an already existing war bonus of 10 per cent. • 9? pre-war rates. That is to say, it would ••,-■ give coal-hewers an increase of 17J- per ■ cent and wages men an increase of 20 ■ J>or cent, on pre-war rates, an increase ■■ ■ not paid in any other industry, and in- ■ volving an additional .£135,000 per annum over pre-wai: rates in wages the Wfl ole of which would have to come out Of the pockets of consumers. The miners statement that conditions come be- ; fore an increase of wages is eharaoteria•ed as. rash and unsupported by facts. ■■'• Regarding the price of coal the owners gay at is not correct to say that a general rise of se. per ton in price was made When the 10 per cent, war bonus was "ranted to miners. In the case of some leading companies the wholesale price was increased from 2s. 3d. to 2s. 6d. only In certain cases an increase of 6s. per ton ,-was made, but of that sum 4e. was paid out in additional freight, which in particular cases was payable by the comspanies, so that the companies concerned ;did not get the benefit of anything like 'the full amount of the increase. '' So far as can be ascertained one company only raised the price of coal- by Bs. a ton and - of this amount at least 4s. per ton was ;to cover increased shipping freight and .the balance to cover the increased cost -.of production and the loss occa'«oned by the "go-slow" policy. .Throughout New Zealand, including i*" 8 .;. St ate mines, and also in Ausrtralia, an increase ■in the price of coal 'jwaa found to be absolutely necessary, and any increase that has taken place fias been no more' than sufficient to [cover the actual increase in working costs, railage, and shipping freight, and ;.the go-slow" policy. The owners are quite prepared for any investigation j-whioh the Board of Trade may make to jadjust the advanced wholesale price but •even if a general increase of Bs. per ton .had been made, the statement of the •federation is still manifestly absurd It [assumes that the only item in the'cost |of_ production which has increased is the miners wages, and it assumes further that the increased cost of production is :tne only reason for f thfi rise in price. ■Reference is made to the effect of the &o-elow" policy. , Regarding the charges of exploiting, the owners state that the paid-up capital of ,the.registered coal-mming companies in SrS 1 Ia approximately iiot loss ,tl.an AMo,Wjtho total capital, in'*?™riyCal?l?,lllg iB . Probably nearer ;£2 000,000), and the dividends paid in and in 1916 to .651,175. a return ifor I9H of 8.6 per cent., for 191S of 3.5 and for 191G of :U per cent. ;\ ery few of the dividend-paying coiiiTanies paid dividends in each of the itnree years and a large miijority paid ao dividend at all during .that 'period and in'no case did any company p'at a dividend exceeding 10 per cent.