Grey River Argus TUESDAY, May 17th, 1932 COAL CONFERENCE ESSENTIAL.

Grey River Argus, 17 May 1932, Page 4

Grey River Argus TUESDAY, May 17th, 1932 COAL CONFERENCE ESSENTIAL.

It is possible Io take today, a more hopeful view of the local coal situation than that prompted previously by the peremptory attitude of the employers in the industry. There has been nowhere any support for that stand forthcoming, whereas in several quarters the request of the miners for an observance of the customary method of negotiating an amicable agreement has been accorded public endorsement. It may indeed be safely said there is unanimity on the West Coast that the

Coal Owners’ Federation, should meet the Miners’ District Council in conference immediately. So much is generally recognised to be essential if a costly and inconvenient interruption in production is to be averted at a time when the need of coal is greater than at' any other season of the year. But is must further be recognised that in any and every industry the principle of negotiating, instead of dictating, wages and conditions cannot be ignored

without the inevitable risk of industrial strife and loss for all concerned. It has been suggested I hat the Minister of Mines might rise to the occasion by .such intervention as will ensure continuity of production, but the Government unfortunately has so far followed a course akin to that of the private employers in excluding its employees from such revision of terms ! and conditions as it may propose in its own collieries. That does not, on the face of it, bear out the proclaimed Coalition policy of compulsory conciliation, which, if it means anything, means to begin with at least a conference and negotiations di- ’ rectly with the State miners, inf stead of merely a consultation with officials who are far more identified with the interests of the employer than those of the employee. The least to be expected from the Government is that it would take a neutral stand, or act the part of a referee. It might be suggested that what the coal owners have done is only to take up the position they have for tactical reasons, but the miners cannot afford to allow the employers to “get away with it” like that. It is obvious that such a course makes inevitable an interruption of the industry, a thing that is always a source of complaint if by any means the responsibility for it can be attributed to the miners. It is equally obvious that any serious stoppage at this juncture would have the effect of making oversea coal producers a gift of our market to a very considerable extent, with a loss for many besides those immediately concerned in the local industry. There should certainly be no suspension of the existing agreement until it is replaced by a new one. That principle has, in fact, been recognised already in the ease of the Northern miners, in whose case, moreover, the coal owners insisted upon a continuity of work under the existing terms while negotiations were in progress. Why the procedure should be widely varied in the case of the West Coast miners is a thing that the Owners’ Federation have not attempted to explain or justify. The miners are already upon a bare subsistence level as regards wages, and their conditions do not admit of any worsening. They are, however, prepared to give the same fair consideration to the case of the coal-owners as they ask that their case should be given by the coal owners. But what they could not be expected to accept is so general and serious an inroad upon their rights as they have been asked to accept without even the slightest question. That altogether too much of a sacrifice in wages and conditions has been demanded in the interests of profits even a casual comparison of the existing agreement with the employers’ new terms will make plain beyond question. For instance the changes proposed regarding wet timekwould lower the wages by 4s per day, to which significance is lent by the further proviso for the abolition of any wage minimum. It is equally significant that the employers should in a particular instance demand that before 2s extra be paid for working in a wet place, the recipient must satisfy the employer that he has worked for no fess than eight hours in a saturated condition. Whatever his pay, it can be said that any man working in such a condition for such a length of time is not destined to draw such pay for more than a very brief space of time, as his i health would deteriorate very rapidly indeed. Reductions up to 5d per ton may mean little for the consumer, but they mean a great deal for the miner. A general wage reduction of from 15 to 20 per cent, when full time has become the ■ exception at so many mines is a very drastic reduction, on top of which the miners are asked to pay in future from three to seven times as much for their

household coal as they now pay. The first question, however, is to ensure that such a series of changes Shall be reviewed in the light of their effects not merely upon profits, but upon wages and conditions, and this can only be done at a conference where both parties are able to institute comparisons. Hitherto the industry has been conducted under agreements which resulted from negotiations, and no real reason has been shown for any departure from that procedure.