The Evening Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1910.

Evening Star, Issue 14513, 3 November 1910, Page 4

The Evening Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1910.

Wt publish in this issue the report of the Railways Committee of Tha Railway the House of KepresentaServlce. lives on a question which has been keenly debated in industrial circles—namely, whether the Drivers, Firemen, and Cleaners’ Association should be officially recognised by the Railways Department as a separate organisation. Tho petition of tho Association to this end was strenuously opposed by tho Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, and the Committee took a considerable amount of interesting and curiously contradictory evidence in relation to the points at issue. The report is in. some respects, of a rather perplex!?.' nature; for, while the Committee rccom mead that the prayer of the petition hj granted, they preface this recommendatici by a rejection of the principal (though not the only) grounds upon which the petitioners based their claim. Air G. W. Russell, MAP., who acted on behalf of the Association, and the witnesses whom ho called, gave apodal prominence to the allegation that the drivers, firemen, and cleaners were not adequately represented in the councils of the Amalgamated Society, and that their special interests had been neglected—not in a wilful fashion, but by reason of “the magnitude, the diversity, and tho hick of cohesion” which characterise the Society’s constitution and working. The Committee are unable to accept these allegations. They find that tho Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants have represented the engine-drivers, firemen, and cleaners equally as well as the other branches of the Service, and that due prominence has always been given to their requirements when the Department was being approached by the delegates of the Society. Nevertheless, as has been said, the Committee recommend that tho drivers, firemen, and cleaners should receive separate recognition, on the ground that there ie no possibility of the Association and the Amalgamated Society coming to an agreement, and “ it is in the “ best interests of the Railway Service “that these two sections should work in “hannony,” Certainly the witnesses

: called in support of the Association's were pmjphatic in deling the

possibility of a rapprochement under existing conditions, though most of them expressed the belief that harmony between the two branches would soon prevail if recognition were to bo accorded to the Association. One witness, an enginedriver, said : “ I de not think there is tho “slightest possibility of the locomotive “men over uniting again with the “ Amalgamated Society. Tho whole cry “along the line to-day is ‘ No surrender.’ ” It should bo stated that the Association of Engine-drivers, etc., is already a legally constituted union, and 1,089 out of about 1,400 members signed tho petitions. Prominence should also bo given to the fact that Mr Ronayne, tho Railway General Manager, told the Committee that (subject to certain details) he had no objection to the proposed recognition. On tho other hand, the witnesses in opposition to the claim were very resolute in protesting against what they termed the “ sectionalisms of railway unionism.” Tho secretary of tho Amalgamated Society adduced striking illustrations of the (as alleged) unsatisfactory working of “sectioualisation ” in other countries, and one strongly worded passage from a Brisbane letter may be quoted : As to the senseless—l might say criminal—act of your locomotive men in attempting to divide your Association, it utterly coiuifouiids me. They cannot know the disastrous effects upon us in Australia this sectionalism has worked. on will find, whatever tho present arguments, professions, and protestations are. that division means ultimate subdivision, every one of which is another vampire sucking the life-blood from unionism. Time was, twenty ywns ago, when we were all in one union like our New Zealand comrades to-day; but, alas! the drivers, firemen, and cleaners separated themselves first-, and now we _ are cursed with six distinct organisations in Brisbane, each with its own Executive and officers. Gcd help yon if you begin dividing, for surely will your strength and usefulness begin io ebb away, be-causc with weakness comes dissatisfaction and further subdivision; while one section is played against the other by the officials until “Ic brib'd ” is written upon your escutcheon—“ The glory is denarted.” Fight this to tho death, and prevent tho thin end of the wedge at all cost-.

It is right to say that the supporters of the claim for recognition were just as ready with appeals to the experience of other communities. Mr Bussell pointing out that Drivers, Firemen, and Cleaners’ Associations were separately recognised in England, Scotland, Ireland, America. Argentine, Sweden, Africa, France, Germany, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, and Tasmania. Indeed, on this and some other points the conflicting character of the evidence has a most perplexing effect upon anyone who desires to form a definite and dispassionate opinion on the merits of the question. In these circumstances, we need not apologise for withholding a derided expression of judgment until the matter has been further debated. A priori our inclination is in favor of comprehensive union, and opposed to “sectionalism,” but wo recognise that the question cannot bo settled exclusively, or even mainly on a priori grounds, and that a consideration of the actual conditions of the New Zealand service may suggest a different verdict. In. conclusion, in order to mark the divergence of opinion in regard to one very important point—the greater or less likelihood of tho occurrence of strikes under this or that system—we shall place two statements in parallel column. The first is by Mr Bussell, M.P., representing the Association, the second by Mr MTnu-en, M.P., on behalf of the Amalgamated Society : Mr Bussell: Mr M’Laren (quesThis is an Associa- tioned): tion having a no- Would you constrike clause in its sider it would bo a conditions, and I bad thing for the wish to emphasise people of New Zeathat before this land that there Committee to-day. should bo recogniThe Locomotive Eti- tion of tho Locomo-gkie-drivers. Fire- tive Engine-drivers’ men, and Cleaners’ Union, and, if so, Association have in why?—l consider it their constitution a would bo a bad clause which pro- thing for the pubvidcs that there shall lie service, and Ibebe no strike. Tho lieve it would be Amalgamated So- bad for this reason : ciety possess no that if two societies such clam a ap.it are recognised,then from the law; which there is no ground is in the Arbitration for refusing three, and Conciliation Act or four, oa five, as penalising those per- the case may bo, sons who should and there comes in go out on strike in the element of cli- , nnection with the vision, which mav r.lways, If we had grow and strengthen such a thing as is until tho whole Seroroposed by certain vice is disintogicoplo in New Zea- rated; and I Gotland —■ namely, a elder that there is federation of labor far more danger of —and I would point strikes and trouble out to the Cbm- tirising out of tint mittee that that is than by tho exboing strongly urged istenoo of one solid at the. present time body. My experi—a union welding C nce is this; that tho whole of the labor bodies oven in labor _ classes into a largo form very one—if such a union seldom sit down dedeclaved that labor libera tely and plan shall strike, you ou t a strike. A might have your strike arises out of railways stopped ex- gom© other cause, cept that the motive men, who are the heart and soul of the Railway Service, would, according to their constitution, refuse to participate in anything that would stop the traffic in this country. Which of tho societies is worthy of recogni- », tion, tho one that has as tho foundation of its constitution “No-strike,” or the society that holds itself free to strike if ’ occasion arose? These two opinions are diametrically opposed, and wo are not optimistic enough to suppose that the recommendations of the Railway Committee will hare the prompt effect of pestering .hecmwiy of eefttimoaL

Ir tho National Provident Fund Bill is to bo passed this Th# year, it will be done National Provident in a hurry, and its Fund. defects, unless emphasised to members, may be overlooked. In order, then, that there may be as little danger as possible of the faults of the Bill being perpetuated in tho statute, we wish to point out as clearly and succinctly as wo can, but also most emphatically, tho grave defects that will, unless remedied, ruin an otherwise good measure. First: Tho income limit is disastrous; it is fixed at about £3 13s a week. That is an irregular and an irrational figure. A vast number of persons who need the measure badly, and who would be most likely to take advantage of it, are those who are obliged to keep up a certain amount of appearance, and ■hereby incur additional expense of living, and who aro in receipt of £4 or so a week. £260 a year should be tho hast limit permitted. If this change bo not made, it will cut away an enormous amount of tho value of tho measure. Second: That a person must contribute for five years before b&ooming entitled to any benefit is too harsh.

Five years is altogether too long. How would it look if, when a man joined an insurance company, ho got no benefit if ho died within five years? The thing is ridiculous. It must be arranged that contributors become entitled to their benefits immediately on joining, or, at any rato, within a very much shorter period than five years. Third: Tho word monstrous alone seoms capable of properly describing tho provision that a man must bo three mouths ill before ho is to got any relief, and that for whatever length of time he may bo incapacitated ho is to get nothing for tho first three months.

We confess that wo aro completely puzzled to know how such an extraordinary provision as this could ever have found its way into the Bill. At tho very time when a man and his family are most in need of help and assistance, when there is a doctor and medicine to pay for, when a man’s illness, presumably, is at its worst—during that time he is absolutely barred from receiving one penny from tho fund, to which he may have been contributing for many years. That is a vilo provision, and if allowed to remain in tho Bill will certainly bo a bar to thousands joining who would otherwise welcome tho scheme and readily contribute. Fourth: It seems a cruel thing that a widow is to get nothing unless she happens, at the time of her husband’s death, to have a child under tho age of fourteen.

And lot this bo well marked: if a widow docs happen to have a child under fourteen, directly that child becomes fourteen years of ago the 7s 6d a week stops. The widow herself never gets anything. There is no 7s 6d for her, oven if she have a number of children under the age of fourteen. That surely is wrong. There should ho provision for an allowance to the widow on her own account for so long as she is in need of it. Of course, it may bo said that tho moneys paid in by a contributor arc to bo paid to his personal representatives when he dies, in case there is no allowance payable out of tho fund in respect to him. Ho may make provision by .will in respect to such moneys; if he does not, his widow would only get ono-third and his children tho other two-thirds divided between them. This would not bo fair to an aged widow, and it will certainly bo a very bad blot on the measure if the position of tho widow is not very considerably improved. Of course, there arc those who think that the Bill does not go nearly as far as it should. Some form, of insurance, such as exists in Germany, against loss of work or want of work for any legitimate reason is eagerly asked for, but into that matter we do not at present go; wo merely take the Bill as it is, and emphasise in the most marked manner the points that badly require amendment: nor do wc at present go into tho question whether tho scheme should be voluntary or compulsory. That is a question on which there is much to be said. In the meantime wo merely content ourselves with tho consideration of the provisions of the Bill actually before us, and wo regret to say that wc feel very certain that if tho blemishes appearing in tho measure at present bo not removed tho proposals, though well-intentioned, will be little better than waste paper.