Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

In consideration of all the circumstances, we are inclined to the opinion that the dispute in the furniture trade is practically narrowed down to a point which presents no difficulty in settlement. There is really no question of the employers receding from the terms of the agreement of May last, nor is there any justification for the assumption that the employes are taking aggressive action beyond the assertion of principles which the unions have alwajs consistently maintained, but which,' in regard to the preferential employment of unionists, the Court of Arbitration have distinctly refused to recognise. The whole trouble in the present instance would appear to be over the logs. The Board of Conciliation recommend that the prices in logs A and B should be paid for by piecework, the polishers' log to be the same as that annexed to the former industrial agreement, 10 per cent, to be the maximum deducted for machine work -on - chair; makers' log. This deduction of only 10 per cent, for machine work on chairmakers' log is what the employers decline to accept, and it may readily be conceived that they have substantial reasons for the position they take up. We cannot but think that the Board, getting somewhat confused with the variety of logs submitted to them, made a mistake in this matter, since they endorse the 20 per cent, reduction in the case of machine work on cabinetmakers' log previously agreed on, and make it only 10 per cent, on chairmakers' log, although the operatives assented to 20 per cent, in the May agreement. Mr Chisholm may well have expressed surprise at the decision of the Board in this respect, and it is evident from what he said that the employers will not accept the recommendation, which would, indeed, bear hardly upon them, considering that they are prepared, as we understand, to give way in respect to raising the minimum wage to 8s 6d a day for cabinetmakers, chairrnakers, and upholsterers, and to accept the other recommendations of the Board. We have reason to believe that if the 20 per cent, deduction for machine work on chairmakers' log be restored, nearly all, if not all, the employers will at once accept the decision of the Board and sign an industrial agreement on the terms prescribed by the Board.

Except in regard to what, as we have said, must have been a palpable mistake, unfortunately in a very essential matter, the decision of the Board seems to be fairly reasonable, having due regard to the employers and the workmen. Overtime is proposed to be between the hours cf 5.30 p.m. and 8 a.m.; time and a-quarter to be paid up to 9 p.m.; and time and a-half from 9 p.m. until 8 a.m. In the furniture trade working overtime on occasion can hardly be avoided,. but considering the strain it puts on the faculties of the operatives and other obvious objections, the remuneration proposed cannot be thought excessive. So much the better if this overtime is restricted within the narrowest limits. As to the minimum wage, the advance from 8s to 8s 6d for workmen requiring a certain amount of skill can hardly be cavilled at; but it must be expected that employers, when tied down to a minimum wage, will decline altogether to employ inferior workmen. The Board lay down the rule that employers in employing labor are not to discriminate between unionists and non - unionists; " both shall work together in harmony and "under the same conditions, and shall " receive equal pay for equal work." Employers are not, in the employment or dismissal of hands, or in the conduct of their business, to do anything which will directly or indirectly operate to the injury of the union. The principle thus enjoined is a sound one, and may be expected in its operation to conduce to the" advantage of unionists and non - unionists alike. Unionists will not be liable to have their labor under-sold by non-union workers, and such workers will be secure from being under-paid, as they might otherwise be, not having the protection of the unions.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18980818.2.2

Bibliographic details

Evening Star, Issue 10705, 18 August 1898, Page 1

Word Count
689

THE FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE. Evening Star, Issue 10705, 18 August 1898, Page 1

THE FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE. Evening Star, Issue 10705, 18 August 1898, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert