MINERS' DEMANDS

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 40, 16 August 1919, Page 5

MINERS' DEMANDS

NEW DEVELOPMENT

INTERESTS OP OTHER WORKERS

DEPUTATION TO MINISTERS.

FROM ALLIANCE OF LABOUR.

A large deputation from the Alliance of Labour waited upon the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet to-day,, to discuss matters in connection with the coal-minors' dispute. Among different sections of workers represented were railwaymen, waterside workers, drivers, tramwayraen, seamen, and miners, the speakers pointing out that as the dispute 'was having an effect upon all trades, the workers as a whole felt that- they were justified in taking a hand in the matter. Apart, howovei', from any selfish aim, the deputation, speakers said, had the welfare of tho people as a whole at heart. Whl: tho Prime Minister wetSir Joeejih WWi-, Sir 'JanieE Allen., and the lions. 'Vl', I), S. Mi!cDonakl,_ A, M, Myers, D. X.. G-Uirie, W, H. Harries, G, W. Russell. J, A. H'anan, T, M. Wilford, raid D«. M. Pomace.

VITALLY AFFECTED. Mr. R. Hwnpton said the deputation repi'sscnte'l different classes of workers —railways, drivers, seamen, and -linersSo far as tlm organisations outside tha miners wiire concerned, . they had no apology to make for bri:.vgi„g them in in connection with this diswife.

Mr. Massey: What dispute do you refer to?

Mr. Hampton:' Hie _v!r_U-' dispute. .They were, as v/orkors,' he. said, all vitally affected by the position, that had arisen in tho matter of the coal shortage. They- were not approaching the matter in any hostile spirit, and they wanted Ministers to accept their distinct asaur-' ance that they were _»mv;_chiag tho matter with a sincere desire to bring about a satisfactory Battlement to all concerned. Many of their rneit had beau out of work, but they were r.ot Appnjaching the.matter from their own point of. view.

The Hon. Arthur M. Myers : Owing to the shortage of coal. Mr. Ha^ton : Yes, the shortage of coal. Continuing, he said they recognised the subject should be looked at from a national point, of view. They were there to put before Ministers the reasons why the miners could not -ascep-t the offer made by the owners, for the joint consideration of Cabinet, and thai being so, they were anxious to avoid any possibility of argument. They did not expect that they would get any definite reply; that would not be rens-f-iable. _ All they asked was that what they said should be fully considered in all its bearings, and bo treated as a matter of the utmost urgency.

THE EMPLOYERS' OFFER.

Turning to. the question of the employers' offer, the speaker said the offer made did not cover the industry on a national basis. _ That meant, that there was a clause in the agreement offered by the employers which eliminated certain mines from the effect of 'the proposed agreement. ' That affected nine mines.

Mr. Massey : AH soft coal mines. Mr. Hampton : That is a question the miners can answer. That includes 800 employees, or forty per cent, of the total number of men employed. They believed that, although- there might be varying conditions in the mines, that was not necessarily a stumbling block in the bringing ahout of a national agreement. Ministers must realise the importance of national industrial agreements, and of collective action on the part of the employees, which would mean more effective action on the part of the men, and the stability of industry in consequence. There _ was a suspicion in the minds of the miners that the employers' proposals to eliminate those mines from the agreement was to dislocate the national organisation. PRE-WAR CONDITIONS. On the question of wages submitted by the employers, he asked if employees were entitled to and were 'they offered wages equal to pre-war conditions, and, if not, why not? Was it too much for any body of "workers to expect that they should not be in a worse position than they, were in prior to the war? The war was over, and what they wanted to know was whether at the least they should not be placed in as good a position as before the war. He was not sure that they had not- been promised by statesmen something more than that. Referring to the increase in wages given to the miners, the speaker said he had found it' difficult to get figures fully illustrating the rise in tho cost of living from official sources. He believed that 55 per cent, was a moderate estimate of the increased cost of living, but the average man believed that that estimate would be too low. The Board of Trade had stated that the increase was in the vicinity of 52 per cent. It had been urged that the earnings of the miners had increased.

Mr. Massey: What were the average earnings of the miner before the war? Mr. Hampton said that Mr. Roberts would deal with that question, but he remarked that dining the war miners were asked to work harder for war purposes, and they increased their output by 274 tons per miner for the four years of the war. That being so,' it was not right that the owners should assess their average when they came to discuss postwar conditions^ There was also the suggestion by tho owners-that tho miners' increased output was partly due to the working of easier places, but, on tho whole, the Board of Trade had reported that the increased. output wa„ mostly due to. the increased exertions of the miners, The real question was: Is the increase in wages offered equal to the increase in the cost of living? ' . STATE OWNERSHIP. They were, he added, open to argument, and, if they were proved to be in the wrong from the Labour point of view, they were prepared to reconsider the position. The deputation had come prepared to make suggestions, and they, as a representative body, considered the position would never be satisfactory as long as the coal industry was left in private hands. Therefore they suggested that the mines should be under State ownership. No sensible man could deny that State ownership and control had its limitations, but in that re&pect he said he had never met critics of the railways who said the State should hand the cqneern over to a pri-. vato company. That was the real test —anyone who opposed State control must advocate the immediate selling of the Railways and Post and Telegraph services. As to the miners in the State coal-mines, he said he had discovered a suspicion that outside influences had been at work in regard to iha management. STATE v. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. Mr. James Roberts, who took a prominent part in the recent conference, gave a resume of what took place in the various discussions between the owners and tho miners. Dealing with the improved conditions' asked for he said most of them were already in operation in the State mines. ■ Chief among these were matters of timbering, a minimum wage', a stone scale or L a dirt scale.. If tho increase in wages ." '"i " " =--"--—-^ ■

asked for were granted the miners would merely be given a living wage, but the owners' reply was that the system had been in operation for.twenty years and they did not want to change it. In the State mines, where conditions were on the whole better, coal was produced for the public at a cheaper rate than in the other mines. Mr. Roberts spoke at great length on the question of miners' earnings, pointing out that the average daily earnings at Point Elizabeth . and Liverpool mines — worked by the State—were 22s 7d, against the daily average 0f'203 10.33 d in other New Zealand mines. Again, the weekly average during the past six months at Point Elizabeth was £5. 10s 7d, against the £4 lis 7d in other mines, despite which coa} from the State mines was sold in Wellington 16s per ton cheaper than that from private collieries. It had been stated that if the minimum wage were granted the men would lie back and do little, hut to refute this ho, would quote- the fact, that the State mines held the highest average output per man —8 tons 15 cwt. —in the world. Despite the fact that men in the State mines had been granted better conditions, the State had made far fewer increases in price than private firms. In no other country in the world, he added, were miners deprived of the right of. the minimum wage. The wages of the men in the mines had not kept pace with tho rises in the cost of living; in, fact, hecon- ]■ tended that the'increase in wages since | 1914 had been only 27 per cent. OWNERS' PROPOSALS CRITICISED. Mr, Roberts referred briefly to the terms of the agreement proposed by the owners who, he said, wished the men to agree not to make any further demand during the currency of the agreement. That meant that the legislation passed, last session to enable-- the industrial agreements to be varied to meet changes in the cost, of living was to be circumvented, and, surely the Government was not in favour of that^ He criticised the owners' demand that one clause of tho agreement should provide that the miners should inform the Australian miners that conditions in the mines were now satisfactory. That clause, he said, would merely_ defeat the owners' objectas the Australian miners would know that it had been forced upon the local men. . : "THE ONLY WAY." ! "The only way in which the coal sup- ! ply of New.Zealand can be increaeed," he continued, "is to make the conditions such that they will attract labour to the | mines.''' i Hon. A. M. Myers: Both inside and 1 outside th* mines s \ \Mr. Roberts: Yes; the living con- ; ditioi-i, too. There is no necessity to i send to Australia for competent miners j for there are plenty of good men here i who have left the mines on- account of | the unsatisfactory conditions. He urg;ed that conditions generally should be brought up to at iwast -the level of the State mines. Ono of the men's proposals, he added, is that asking that miners should rot do their own trucking, if given effect to, \vould be a great factor in increasing the output. The Primo Minister: Is it usual for miners to do their own trucking in- other countries?

Mr. Roberts: .No.' There are only two small mines fn Queensland where miners do that. Of course, it may be done in some other email companies. . . . That is as far as we have been able to find out. The miners, he explained, based this particular request first on the safety of the _ men, secondly, as a means ,of preserving the-health of the men, and, thirdly, beeauee it would increase the output. In some faces it was not safe for one miner to be left alone while his mate went away with the truck, while the latter ran a risk to his health ,by going constantly from the warm faceUo the cooler passages. As far as the. output was concerned it must «a realisedl that the miner '_ could not hew coal while he was attending to the truck. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION - SOUGHT. In conclusion, Mr. Roberts urged Cabinet to consider tho desirability of nationalising the coal mines, contending that the existing State mines had been handled more efficiently, as far as the public was concerned, than the private mines. Nationalisation of the industry would cheapen the cost to the public. "There is a necessity for the Government," he said, "to deal with the.question we have brought before you immediatly, and I believe that the Government will take'a hand." Prime Minister: 'That- is what you. are asking lor?. I want you to state precisely what you are asking for. Mr. Roberts : Recently there was a dispute in regard to the Auckland tram-, ways, and the Auckland City Council took^ over- the dispute, settled it, and/ then"took over the tramways. I see no reason why something simi]_r should not be douo here.

Pnme_ Minister : That was _ very J good thing for the company, wasn't it? i Mr. Roberts : Possibly,' but it was | also ?• good thing for the people. What the Government was asked to do in the present instance, he added, was to do something to settle the dispute. Mr." Hampton added, in explanation, that if the. solution offered by the deputation was not acceptable to Cabinet, the deputation was quite prepared to consider any alternative Cabinet might propose. PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY The Right Hon. W. F. Massey said that Mr; Roberts had emphasised a statement that conditions in privatelyowned mines were not.so satisfactory as in the State-owned mines, He was pleased to hear that.- the conditions in tho State mines'were satisfactory, andl the Government- would be pleased' to be able to make tho conditions of the private miner brought up to ,_hat standard. The question of housing was in view, but the Government had other things to consider, and it might be a little time before the necessary alterations were made. A PROBLEM THAT MUST BE SOLVED. So far as-the mining industry was concerned, everyone must recognise the exceedingly serious position we had got into. They -had a country which, as far as he knew, was able to supply itself with coal for a very long time to come— hundreds and thousands of years. "(Hear hear.) "In spite of that fact, here we are to-day with our railway service disi organised, and cut down hy more than half, and the whole population of the country suffering serious inconvenience, many suffering loss of employment, many industries practically ceased, because we cannot keep the railways running. It may be said that in the past we have been dependant on imported coal. Quite'true. We have been dependant on imported coal, but I,hope to see the day when we will not have to go outside New Zealand for coal. How that is going to be brought about I am not able to say. Speakers have intimated that the conditions are such that, a sufficient number of men do not see their way to take rip the business of coalmining as a living. Perhaps coal mineowners would put forward a- different reason, but the business of all of us is to find a solution of the problem. The position reminds me of the old saying about 'a house divided against itself,' and a country divided against itself cannot prosper. As long as we find a country split up into sections quarrelling with one another, so long shall wo find national difliculty." A FAIR SHARE OF EARNINGS,'. Every section of the community, be continued, was entitled to its fair __ share of the earnings of the community.

The difficulty was •to know what. wer* / the fair earnings of any section of tha' community. So far as he could judge,no tribunal could answer that question! : satisfactorily. It seemed to him. fchatH . tbe principal part of the dispute was Z in regard to conditions. He did not'; think there should be any difference of opinion on that point. , CABINET'S CONSIDERED DECISION 1 . WANTED. "•' Mr. Massey was about to go into i details in regard to the cost of livings when Mr. Hampton interrupted. him to i say that while' respecting the Prime t Minister's opinions, what t-be deputation -) ■ desired was that Cabinet should consider 1 - the matters brought before it, and then; 'y> at a later date, make a considered state-;!, raent. If any member of Cabinet desired y to ask the deputation any question, how- j ever, he would be answered. To enter 1 into an argument would do no good to 7 the object in view—the settling of the \ dispute. / '. ' The Prime Minister: What you wan* ) to do is to put forward one side? -■-:' Mi\' Hampton replied that . that was '<■ not the case. Having put their-case the v deputation desired Cabinet ■to consider I it;_ then, if Cabinet desired, the depu- i tation.was, quite- prepared to meet Min--/ ' inters, again and hear'what they ha.d--toj ' say. ■ If .Cabinet could . then show, that ■! the speaker's, statements were wrong.'he-) was sure the deputation were men] enough to admit that they were "blown, jy out." /The deputation could not takey the srime . Minister's own opinions ex-» j pressed to-day as the considered decisions,! t of Cabinet.

THE COST. OF LIVING QUESTION..) Mr. M-ssey : I 'do no_.think it is -, fair position to t_ke up. Continuing, he) said Cabinet wanted to do the straight \ and fair thing, and get at the coal ques- j tion from the .point of view' of the pub-T lie as a whole. Interjectors had re-y ferred to the cost of living, and ha I claimed the right to reply. The Govern-;, ment had been trying all the time to/ - keep down the cost of living, but what,the deputation had asked for was going! to raise the cost of living to every per-.-son in the' community. .: Mr. Hampton : That raises another.;' point Lthink it would be better not'to, go into at present.. Mr. Hampton:went.'j on to again emphasise the fact that. ifc.■ was impossible for a definite reply to ba,i made to the deputation; until Cabinet' had gone fully into the matters- mentiori-l v ed by-the speakers. The deputation didsj' not wish to deny the Prime Minister then right to put his views before the public,* but to do it as he was proposing,- would)') only cause disaster, and defeat the ob-' - ject the deputation had in coming. -

CONTINUING A VICIOUS CIRCLE.,,;

Mr. Massey: I have a perfect righto reply to the points you and Mr. Rob-:-erts have raised. Continuing, he saidl.] the deputation would, of course, get, an>) official reply from Cabinet later, but hei .wanted to point out some of the Govern- \ merit's difficulties. One of the greatest! was the'coet of living, and he feared that!' the miners' proposals wOuld simply con-/ tinue the vicious circle the country hadij been travelling, In regard to nationalr-i, sation, he said he had paid close atten-j tion to, and was in touch.with] 8 what was being'-., done at Home.'J He did ■ agree with the comparison; j drawn by Mr. Hampton between thai .' railways and the coal mines. He would s be the last^to submit to any propoEall that the railways should be handed tojprivate companies because that would 1 create a dangerous monopoly. With the I coal mines, however, there were so many^ of tbem that there was no possibility! of such a monopoly being obtained; '','.'}■

Some further interjections were madeU to which Mr. Massey repliedl that ;*_«']' Government wouldygive full justice to 1 every section of the community makingi? out a good' case in support of its re-v quests, but the' Government's first in-,/ terest must be the good of the country '.\ He added that he understood that the'de-f pntation's request was that the Govern-| ment should support the coal-miners inta their demands to the coal companies!; throughout the country for improved con-i* ditions. '..-.- NATIONALISATION PROPOSED. , Mr. Hampton: That is not al-i ; together the position. We are her el not to lay down any hard' andil fast conditions as to what will settlw the dispute. Our sole, object is to pointer out certain matters which-are stumbling^ blocks to a settlement, and to try toM - devise-some means of getting over them.J We suggest that' if a pronouncement wa-'si made by Cabinet to the effect that thai. coal, mines were to be nationalised in-jj twelve months, and if some - arrangements' coiild be made for dealing with the men j meanwhile, matters would he facilitated.]^ The objection of the owners to deal with-ii the matter nationally is a stumbling-.,1 block, and their offers do not meet thai position. ... . We think the situations demands the fullest consideration' of the?Government, and, after that has beenn given, we ask you for an official reply.

Having thanked the Ministers for re»; ceiving them, the deputation then with-.' drew. i ■