AN EVASIVE ANSWER

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 87, 12 April 1923, Page 6

AN EVASIVE ANSWER

The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Eraser for giving Corporation employees seats uppn Council committees are largely evasions. Mr. Eraser omits altogether the question of plural voting or duplicate representation. He do,es not attempt to justify the proposal to give the tr&rnwaymett acjual votee wjth o.tiier citizens in the election

of the councillors and then an additional vote in the election of members of the Tramways Committee. He does not explain whether he would limit this right to the tramway-workers or would extend it also to the tramway customers. He quotes the Sankey report, however, and that provides distinctly for representation of customers. Instead of dealing specifically with these points, he generalises upon ■the benefits to be derived from consultation of the workers. We may agree with him when he says that there is not an employee whether street-sweeper or engineer — : who cannot contribute something to efficient management; but we see no obstacle in the present system to prevent that contribution being made. Every street-sweeper who sees something wrong has the means of suggesting how.it should be put right, and it is his duty to make that suggestion. But does Mr. Fraser suggest that the employees will not make these suggestions unless they are members of a committee, or that the Council officers will not entertain ideas brought to them by the men who work under their direction? Mr. Fraser says the Tramways Committee is a committee of amateurs, and he askß:—

Is it not desirable that the point of view of those who actually run the business ought to be placed before the committee ?

Surely Mr. Fraser cannot mean that that point of view is not placed! What are the tramway officers and engineers doing if they allow this committee of amateurs to proceed blindly without giving that expert advice which they are paid to give? Mr. Fraser suggests that Mr. Wright has never heard of the Whitley scheme or the Sankey report. Evidently Mr. Fraser assumes that no one else has; or he would not attempt to justify the Labour proposal by such far-fetched reference. Considering the arguments advanced for the proposal, there is some justification for the conclusion that its merits have not been considered —except from the point of view of popular appeal to Corporation employees, who of course have votes.