RAILWAYMEN'S PAY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 142, 17 June 1924, Page 4

RAILWAYMEN'S PAY

ARGUMENT BEFORE WAGES BOARD

"SOMETHING MORE THAN A FAIR STANDARD"

The question ,of > pay in the second division of. the railway service was discussed by the ; representatives of the Amalgamated Society' of Railway Servants aiid of the Railway Department before the Wages Inquiry Board 'yes-~ terday afternoon. » ■ ' ' ■ ,

Mr. 'M. J. Connelly, representing the society, reminded the board that the basic rate of pay of the raihvaymen today was £4 2s 8d per week; the gross amount Was £4 7s Id, the difffirerice being withheld for superannuation purposes. Split up according, to the peiCRntages'set out by the Government Statistician, £i Us 3d of the of £4 2s 8d covered food; while 16s 7d was for housing; lls 8d for clothing. 4s 2d for fuel and; light; and £1 Is lOd for miscellaneous. items. He submittßd that the housing allowance, to consider only one item, was altogether inadequate. Only 10 per cent, of the raihvaymen, he declared, were occupying. Government houses. The society claimed something above what was recognised as a living wage. . The day had gone by when tlie wage should be- what was barely, enough for a man to support his wife and family upon. They did not think it reasonable to say that their pay should be based nppn the 1914 standard. The food group figures up, till Kebruary last showed an increase of 62 per cent, upon the- pre-war cost.of living, and the present rate of-pay was about that much higher than the 1914 level. Even' that, however, the society submitted,, was not a fair 'standard." ;

. T:> . oxtie'nd hours or reduce wages, he argued., difl not.tend ;to. increase production; in fact, most economists argued that it had the reverse effect. He quoted from Mr. Henry' Ford's "Life ' and Work" and from Mr. John A. Hobson's "Evolution of.Modern Capitalisni" in support of this contention. 'If hard* ships were inflicted upon the workmen in an undertaking the co-operation of,' the'employers in production was lost,| ancl he jjubmitted that .that applied in the Railifr'ay. Service to-day; the system'! was being run entirely in opposition to the' railway-, servants. .Without' the incentive that was applied in other; concerns, the rtien could not be expected to co-operate. By neglecting to pay the men a deennt wage and to Encourage them to give .the best return, the.' Der partment was following the policy of trying to force them to do things which, Henry Ford and other economists paid their employees to do. The.men iA the service 'were* specialists in their particular class of work, and thfiir' duties and responsibilities were hardly comparable with those in any other (industry, but only ; with those obtaining in the railway systems in other, countries. He thought the society 'was entitled to ask that the hours in the service 'should be the sani<s as those in outside industries, namely/ 44 per week, .They undoubtedly ; were entitled to payment. of time aud a half rates after the completion of eight hours--6n any one day,. "It is a most imonstrous) thing," he said-, "that after all these years the Department at this "juncture should take awayj our overtime. I .think it is a. most reprehensible a'ctiop. We, are-,, npt, here ' for tho purpose: '.of' putting^ mpney in offr men's pocketsj but to prevent thii,Department from wprkirig them more ithan eight hours per day. We h°Ee the Department will lie able; to arrange the schedules in such a way that it, "wilj not be necessary for the men to work more' than eight-hours per day. : We must insist that a penalty, be placed on the De? partment for working .the . raihvftyjnen more than eight hours, in just the'same way as employers in other industries are penalised or 'restrained." . . . . In conclusion,' Mr. Connelly related the circuinsta uces under which the 44----jiour week was. taken away from the men and'tlie 48 hours reverted to. The actions of the Minister subsequent to the strike being called- off w:ere' not ponsonant the principles of .strict; justice, fajr play, and.-straight dealing, and. in the opjnipri oE)thc membersvbf the" society they amounted -to ' yictimisiition.. The Minister q,nd his>.officers,;:he submitte.d, by-.forcing the men back-, to. the 48 hours,, had usurpa^ the functions, of the Boartt. Pf Inquiry'in respect. to one of tlie most. inipprtant matters.' referred to it. No tribunal jn. the'^world.' woulc} assent to such action as had been resorted to by.; tlie Department, in the past month. ■•;•-. •„. -\' i

IHE DEPARTAIEM'S VIEWPOINI

1 tylr. Sterling, openijig :the case for the. Railway .' Department, dealt first, of. all, with the )vages. question and the clainv, of the ■ socfety that .the /40-hour week should' be restored -without any reduction in weekly pay. This, he submitted, was equivalent'to , a veque§t. for an ] increase in wa-ges. To grant, the, increase to the 11,000 basic wage men .: in the service would cost about' £240,000, and ■ throughout .the whole '■ service £350,000, There was pr;ictica-!!y. no difference between-the. wage the men should receive on the: basis of the 1914 standard, taking Jnto consideration' .the rise in the cost of .living, and that they ■ were actually'receiving now. The men were now getting £4 7s, Id per 'week, and1 62 per cent, increase (the cost;' ofliving, rise on the 1914. rates')" was. £4 7s i 6d. It was- wiiolly fallacious to 'take as ■ the standard the 'gross wage, less superannuation payments.. Eyery worker had to mike provision for his old. age, and the: superannuation payments were fov that, purpose. It should ;be 'Considered 'alsp that ,tHe contributions to the fund were subsidised by the Gpv. eminent, wbjch those outside 'the Government service did not enjoy. It wfis just a question whether the compar'ispn between 1914 and the present day Ehould not.be in; point of earning capacity. On that, basis the average "pay of the'meraliers of the rail wn .ys staff'was; £145 per year before the .war, and £238 npw— representing an increase of 64 per cent. Ho submitted, Iherefor^, that tlie'railv wi>.y men were receiviflg at present ali they were entitled' to. If they got as much as, or more, than, the other basic wage earners they could not be sajd to be receiving- too , little."' lie. agreedthat, the men weve entitled 'to a 9.fail? standard of. -.living,' but that was a difficult question to decide uppn. . The Arbitration Cpijrt had decided tp lake the _Gpveriament Statistician's figures as to foe iqcrease in the cost of living as its guide. To justify the railwayraen reV: ceiving higher wages than other' workers one had to. compare conditions of work, etc., and show that they were giving greater: relative service to the community than otl]er wprkers, I[e con-' tended that the basic wa;go' worker.-' in the Eailvyay . Service was receiving 33-44ths of a pennjr per houc more than the basic wage prescribed by' the iVrbitratipn Court; Iv addjtjpn. to that the railway worker enjoyed special privj-J leges which: the outside worker did" not have. . ■ : TWO BUGBKARS GONE, ' It must be, considered- that the. rail-> wayman w-xs relieved of two. of. the bug-.

bears which beset the outside worker by the permanency of his employment, and the^ guarantee of being 'freed from anxiety in ..his old age. ' Those factors were more than sufficient offset against any higher-rafe of wage which the out side labourer might be able to obtain by bargaining. He imagined that Mr. Connolly must have had hjs tongue in h's cheek when lie derided the advantage of the superannuation fund. The fund was an ahsolute .cash guarantee towards a man's oja age, and carried a Government, subsidy which last year totalled £120,000. ; , ■ Mr. Sterling went on to ' -refer to the benefits derived by members of the service in regard. to leave passes, unifprms, housing, carriage of provisions, etc., as presented in evidence in the earlier Wages Board proceedings! In conclusion,- he submitted that Mr. Connelly, had failed to justify any increase in the,rate of pay of the members of the service, either on the ground of the cost of living or of the value of the.services rendered.

The Court adjourned at' this stage till to-day. . ■ .. ;