RAILWAY STRIKE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 28 June 1924, Page 5

RAILWAY STRIKE

OPPOSITION LEADER ON SETTLE-

MENT

AN IRREGULAR AMENDMENT,

(By Telegraph.—Special to Star.)

WELLINGTON, June 27. The first topic discussed in the House was the recent railway strike, Mr Willord, Leader of the Opposition, moving an amendment which, tnougii disapproving of. the strike, expressed approval of the principle ol the 44-Lour week, which the railwayman lost as the result ol their direct action. Though the debate on this issue was curtailed by a ruling that the amendment was out of order, there was a good deal said about the interesting negotiations after the strike between the railwayrnen’s leaders and the Minister for Railways.

Mr Wilford, taking advantage of the motion to introduce the Imprest Supply Bill, quoted the agreements made with the second division of the raihvaymen in 1.919, granting a 44-hour week'to several sections, this being made general the following year. He admitted that the men, by striking, broke their contracts, but commented on the fact that the Railway Department had actually introduced the change in the hours of working when the whole question had been referred to a tribunal for adjudication. He and his supporters, he added, would not stand for strike methods, but they thought that 44 hours weekly were long enough for the railwaymen. He moved that this House, while opposing direct action and the strike, affirms the principle of a 44hour week in the railway service in terms of the agreements of 1920 and 1921. The Hon. J. G. Coates, Minister for Railways, followed the Leader of the Opposition. The 44-hour week, he said, sounded all right, and might be good in certain industries, but taking into consideration the circumstances of the Railway Department, it was impossible to work a 44-hour week with an eighthour day. Mr AVilford : “It has for four years.”

Mr Coates: “And what position did we get into-'” He added that he was not going into financial details, except to say that in the year when the country’s exports were a record and the least train miles were run. the railways were only able to get £60,(X)0 ahead, and pay 3if per cent, while everyone was asking for a reduction of freights, fares ancf increased train mileage. It might be said that it might be bad management and that the. Minister was to blame, but the plain fact was that the overhead expenses were so heavy that they were unable to move. The cutting .down of hours had meant an increased- staff of 5000 since 1921, though they had reduced the train mileage. That had some bearing surely on the Department’s ability to give the people reductions in fores and freights. Mr Parry: “At the expense of the men.”

The Minister: “Not altogether. Reorganisation is quite necessary, I admit, and that at once, and it is being carried out; also a reduction of grades which means money. There is no railway service outside New Zealand working a 44-hours week. The Ministei went on to say that when the eighthour day question cropped up and the Amalgamated president said he thought a 48-hour week meant that the eighthour day would continue, he, the Minister, pointed out that such an interpretation was entirely wrong. Nobody who thought the matter out could put such a construction upon rt. Mr Fraser: “That is where you go back on the whole tiling. One of the rottenest things ” Mr Sneaker: Order!

Mr Coates added that he did not expect to please everybody, but he wa£ perfectly satisfied that the Amalgamated Society’s nresident and secretary understood it thoroughly. “I do not say foi a moment that they went back and told the members of their association what was told them.’’ Referring to the surplus of 2000 men made available through the lengthened week, Mr Coates said there was an ebb and flow in the second division, and as between 1500 and 2000 men left during each year there was no intention to strike off 2000 employees. They would also he absorbed in other works connected with capital expenditure. . Further debate was stopped by the Premier successfully raising a point of order that the amendment dealt with a matter which was being considered by a court. (BY TELEGRAM —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON,' June 27. Mr Massey said they had heard much regarding concessions to the public service during the debate, but lit would like to Inform the House- that the Treasury had just reminded him that he would have to provide £175,000 this year for superannuation to public servants alone. He had been attacked because lie had not called Parliament together to settle the strike, but he maintained that the Government hau settled the strike in a better manner than Parliament could have done.

Mr E. J. Howard (Christchurch South) : You have not settled it vet.

Mr Massey said he did not know whether that was a threat or not, but the Government was not going to allow any branch of the public service to run the country. That could onLy ba done by constitutional means, ana the Government would not tolerate anything else. Mr Massey said he had heard that he was to be prevented from reducing taxation, but lie maintained that no country could succeed if the people were too heavily taxed, and in spite of the opposition lie proposed to ask Parliament to reduce taxation this year just as he had done in previous sessions. To him it was humiliating to see the manner in which the two opposition parties were seeking to obtain support from the public service, but he warned them that if much more of that sort of thing went on it would result in the whole question of public service salaries being taken out of the hands of the House and given over to the Arbitration Conn. He denied that the Government had ever reduced salaries as had been so often stated. They had reduced bonuses, as was agreed upon when those bonuses were granted, and that reduction was the turning point in the finances- of the country, which was then passing through intense stringency. Tt had been said that the Government was the enemy of the workers, but no Government in the history of New Zealand ever did so much for the workers as his Government. and he quoted figures supplied by the Public Service Commissioner to show how the Government had incre.ased salaries .in the lower grad:- of the public service since 191-'-!. and even taking in the increased cost or living these people were never better treated in their lives. These increases had increased the burden of taxation on the people to the extentof £4,500,000. Speaking of the railway service, be referred feelingly to the responsibilities of the locomotive men, and he In p-d there never would be anything in innature of a reduction of their salaries or an extension of their hours. Nothing

out the most extreme depression would justify such a course. A division was called fo.r on Mr, Holland’s amendment that . the House should increase the salaries of public servants whose case is not- at present sub judiee, and who are in receipt of less than £SOO per annum, to the 1914 standard, as expressed in purchasing power, and that the House affirms the desirability of the e-r-hours working week lor all such public servants. The amendment was rejected by 55 votes to 17, only the Labour members voting ior it. .Mr 4. O’Brien (Westland), who did not vote, paired for the amendment fith Mr T. i). Burnett (Teinuka), who was absent through illness. Mr T. I\. Sidcy .(Lunedin South) moved an amendment on similar lines to the Labour amendment, hut substituting £320 for £SOO. Mr Holland stated that the Labour Party, consistent with its general attitude, would support the amendment. Mr Massey said that if the amendment was carried it must he regarded by the Government as a recommendation 1 rom the House, and in that case it would supersede the recommendations of the Board of Arbitration, which had gone so carefully into the whole question. Their deliberations, conducted with so much dignity, would thus be turned into a farce. On a division, the amendment was lost by 37 votes to 34. Mr Wilford then moved his amendment, which the Speaker previously ruled out of order. When a division was taken the amendment was defeated hv 37 votes to 34. The Bill, authorising the appropriat ion of £2,348,900, was then passed through the remaining stages.