WAR BONUS

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 127, 30 May 1916, Page 8

WAR BONUS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Being a joiner, I was ralher interested to see the reply of the Wellington Builders and Contractors' Union to the war bonus demands of the AmalX mated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, which appeared in your issue of the 25th inst., and it was pretty much what was to be anticipated. It is to be hoped the Employers' Union gave full consideration to the latter part of the Court's suggestion, which they quote, that employers generally might well consider whether workers in their employ should not be granted a war bonus," etc. The master builders complain that contracts have already been entered into, and that they cannot afford the increase in wages; also they are losing on materials. Do they intend to convey thai, all those employers paying extra, rates are doing so at a, loss? I know for a fact that in the case of one large building in AYellington, tendered for since the .war, a substantial margin was allowed for an anticipated rise in the cost of labour as well as in materials by the firm that secured the contract. It is to be assumed that many, if not all the unsuccessful tenders were on the same wicket, their tenders being higher. They were members of the Builders' Union, too, and I am of opinion that they all put on a bit extra "for the war," otherwise they were not businesslike. The reply also says that the trade considered the last award would be a, settlement for some years to come. Did they ? The employers might, but the_ men kept the fact in mind that it expired at the end of this year. A war bonus and an award are entirely separate things; the new award can wait till December, we are asking for the bonus now, and if the war continues the bonus can continue in conjunction with the rise in the new award which we hope to get, for so long ,as prices go up so must our wages. With regard to the suggestion of working forty-eight, hours a week, I should like to know if the employers propose to pay overtime'rates for the extra four hours? I think not, or they would not propose it; men will usually put in a little overtime, but want the overtime rate when, they do. The fact of the matter seems to be that a- certain few, who aie regular attenders at the Builders' Union meetings are against any concessions, while others are paying extra rates. Some would begrudge an extra, shilling a da.y to the finest tradesman that ever gripped a saw, while others are prepared to pay for good men. That is partly the reason why employers were circulated individually, as the reply sent by the Builders' Union was probably not considered by the majority of its members. Practically the same circular letter as was sent to the private employers was sent to the Government and the- City Council, and I notice that the latter body has set an example which it is' to be hoped that all employers of labour will not be slow to follow, as it is only justice.—l am, etc., L.L.D. 27th May, 1916.