WAR GRATUITY

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVI, Issue 70, 20 September 1943, Page 6

WAR GRATUITY

PAYMENT TO SEAMEN

REPLY TO CRITICISM

"The War Cabinet's approval of the £6 ja month war risk gratuity to merchant seamen in no way transgresses the provisions of the stabilisation regulations. Critics of the Government have wrongly reported the facts about the gratuity," states Mr. F. P. Walsh, general president of, the... New - Zealand Federation •of Seamen's' Union. "First of all, the gratuity is hot an extra war risk bonus," said Mr. Walsh. "As a gratuity it differs from a bonus in that it is not paid in cash' now, but is to be paid out after the war. It is credited at the rate qf £6 a month, and after deduction of taxation, the balance is paid into the individual seaman's National Savings account. If he has no account, one is opened for him." :■'...'•.

The granting of the gratuity did not run counter to stabilisation,-Mr.-Walsh continued. Wages and other rates of remuneration were stabilised by the Economic Stabilisation Regulations, 1942, the general purpose being to hold all rates of remuneration at the levels of November 15, 1942. Under the regulations, however, increases could be granted in certain special circumstances, and one of those circumstances was where an employee was engaged in, work involving additional risk to life or health. •

Nobody would deny that New Zealand seamen were facing additional risks in the course of their employment. Merchant seamen were among the first to suffer from the attacks of the enemy. Great numbers of them had lost thier lives in enemy attacks, and there had been innumerable accounts of their- endurance, courage, and devotion to duty in the face of danger. WITHIN THE REGULATIONS. The stabilisation regulations also provided that where negotiations for increases were under way before December 15, those negotiations could be completed within a six months' limit. The negotiations between the union and the Government concerning the war risk gratuity to seamen began in October, 1942, and, accordingly, came well

within the scope of the regulations dealing with transitional cases, k :-i- From this it would be seen that far from being contrary to the provisions of the Stabilisation Regulations, the granting of this war risk gratuity to seamen entirely conformed with those regulations.- It should be added that before War Cabinet authorised this gratuity the proposal was before the Economic Stabilisation Commission, which recommended that the proposed increases be approved. ' * ■■ AUSTRALIAN PERCENTAGE. The £ 6 a month deferred gratuity and the£6 a month original war risk bonus received by, New Zealand merchant seamen were compared by Mr. Walsh with the bonuses being paid to Australian --and .United States seamen at the time v/hen'the War Cabinet approved payment of the gratuity. .Crews on Australian articles, for the first three months' service on one ship, received 33 1-3 per cent, additional to their combined wages and overtime, and if they remained on a ship after that period the bonus became 50 per cent, for the whole period that they were employed. This bonus was payable monthly in cash. A master on Australian articles receiving £90 a month in wages and overtime would receive an additional £45 a month war risk bonus. On New Zealand articles he receives £6 a month war risk bonus in cash, and the £6 gratuity payment, less taxation, is credited to him in a National Savings Account, and he receives it after the war.

AMERICAN BONUSES

American seamen in the Pacific received a flat war risk bonus of 100 dollars a month in. cash and an additional 100 dollars in cash when their vessel entered the main New' Zealand ports. This extra 100 dollars was paid merely for entering those ports. In the event of their vessel . calling at Sydney, the additional amount was 125 dollars. If they entered two New Zealand ports as- well as Sydney in., the one month, they received 325 dollars additional to the original 100 dollars war risk bonus, making a total of 425 dollars sin bonuses. "Those* who criticise payment of this war gratuity to seamen constantly contradict themselves," . Mr. Walsh concluded. "They set out to condemn the Government for approving the gratuity and yet in the same: oreath. they emphasise that the seamen thoroughly deserve it. They have taken the matter up solely as part of their electioneering campaign; but why should the merchant seamen be used as a chopping block for such a purpose? Can anyone say that New Zealand merchant, seamen, have not played their part in this war?" '.'.-.■