RAILWAY PAY

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 132, 2 December 1930, Page 10

RAILWAY PAY

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent "Economy," in your issue of the 28th November, shows a lack of knowledge of actual rates in the N.Z.R. when he quotes the rate of pay for work done between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. as far aa the workshops are concerned. The workshops for the past fifteen months or so have been working what is. known as a night shift, starting at 4.10 p.m. and finishing at 1.40 a.m., nine hours for ordinary rates of pay. When a holiday comes where double rates have to be paid this shift finishes at 11.55 p.m. the day before, and in the following week men have had to work ten hours iand-a half on several nights to make up for lost time, again at ordinary rates of pay. What private employer would be allowed to do this? "Economy" compares the wages of the workshop men with those of private employers. Let him compare these facts and he will realise -that he has made a mistake. —I am, etc., FACTS.

In the course of a lengthy reply to '"Economy," "Thomas J.L." states that the former correspondent, in quoting rates paid to railway workshop employees (skilled craftsmen) is evidently unaware o£ tho deductions made from the wages for superannuation. This reduction is compulsory to nil permanent officers. "There are other factors that he is ignorant of, and which I will not mention. . . . All skilled workers receive the rates of overtime or night-work pay that "Economy" quotes. The crowning error of the whole letter is contained in his remark, 'If there should be a difference in railway wages they should be less, and not more than those paid by the private employer.'" "Thos. J.L." submits that if this were done rates below those fixed by the Arbitration Court would be paid—thus breaking down the safeguards for the minimum wage. Referring to the concessions given to railway employees, F. Prescott states, in reply to "Argumentum ad Crumenam," that, similar rebates on purchases from their employers- are obtained, not" only by warehousemen, but by assistants in the retail grocery and drapery stores. "Tramway men are allowed free travel to their employment, so why sort out the railwayman for attack, on his workers' ticket reduction? Do not the public receive a reduction on their workers' ticket, and they are not employed in the Railway Service? The public have helped to bring their railways into the sad state they are in by patronising opposition transport where possible, and now the fares have risen they give vent to their feelings by attacking the railway employee. Let everyone do their share in patronising their own Vailways and help to get them back to their former state, and this will bring the fares down." . .