COSTLY DISPUTES

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 August 1929, Page 5

COSTLY DISPUTES

WORKERS LOSE TWO MILLIONS HEAVY GOVT. EXPENDITURE (Australian Press Association.) (By Cable—Press Assn.—Copyright.) ) (Recd. August 1, 11 a.m.) SYDNEY, August 1. Workers throughout the State, as the result of the timber strike and the Northern coalfields stoppage, both of which have been in progress for six months, have lost nearly two millions sterling in wages. The disputes have thrown thirty thousand men out of employment. Unemployment relief is costing the Government £lO,OOO weekly. The unions have collected £70,000 in levies. Further trouble is expectedi by the gas companies which are exeriencing difficulty in securing gas-making coal. The Government stacks at Waratah, from which coaP is obtained, are sadly depleted. Only about a month’s supply is left. A critical position may occur, unless a new source is found shortly.

PROSPECTS OF SETTLEMENT SYDNEY, July 31. Indications point to 'an early settlement of the coal strike as the result of the expressed desire of the miners’ representatives for a compromise, and the pressure of business people for a re-opening of the mines, in order to avoid bankruptcy. The Commission to-day issued a statement defining the basis of profits, and the procedure iit intended to adopt in arriving at its decision.

In this regard the Miners’ Representatives, however, declared there is no guarantee that the Commissions pending will be binding on either side. They are not anxious to await its ultimate conclusions, and therefore overtures will be made during the weekend to the mine owners for the resumption of negotiations for a settlement. It is expected that a recommendation to accept the owners’ bedrock terms will be approved by a full meeting of representatives, engine drivers and mine employees, on Friday night. SEAMEN’S~DISPUTE. MELBOURNE, July 31. The threatened strike of seamen is not worrying the shipowners, who declare they intend to continue to exercise the right of the free selection of crews. ( Mr O’Neill claims that the owners had agreed with his organisation to give preference to its members.