The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1892.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9646, 11 February 1892, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1892.

We see that some of- the men. working on a section of railway lot under the co-operative contract system in Auckland are dissatisfied with the wages they are earning. They complain that they do not make enough to pay for food. That is to say, a complaint to this effect has been made by someone—who either doea or does not represent the men —and has been promptly wired through the Colony by the Press Association. This statement represents one extreme of the grumblings about the cooperative contracts. The other extreme was represented by a leading article published some time ago in the Auckland Herald, which attacked the system on account of the excessive and extravagant wages which the men could make under it. The Herald reminded its readers that in New Zealand heretofore it had been usual to pay men for whom employment was 1 found by the State something less than the current rate of wages. It suggested that the Government was making a new departure in enabling men to make such exceedingly good profits out of the co-operative system. One mistake made by the Herald was in supposing that the railway co-operative contracts are relief J works under a new guise. They have nothing to do with relief works. They are simply public works let under the co-operative instead of the ordinary contract system. Another mistake the Herald appeared to make was in suggesting that men who do good work for the State should be ! paid something less than full wages. With regard to this latest cora- | plaint of the insufficiency of the wages earned on the Hikurangi railway, it is quite possible that inquiry will show the matter to have been I exaggerated. Of course, if either j the measurements or the estimate | have been such as to preclude indusI trious men from making reasonable wages, then there is a fair grievance j which ought to be promptly remedied. | But when we remember the immense i fuss made out of a small dispute of this kind in connection with the unemployed at Pahiatua, we are inclined to suspend our judgment on the Hikurangi complaint until we hear both sides of the question. During the Wellington election the Govern- | ment was attacked for having I c< shamefully” treated the unem--1 ployed at Pahiatua. Yet, on 1 investigation, the facts of the lease turned out to be these ! The unemployed labourers and their i baggage bad been carried free by rail I and coach from Wellington to Pahiai tua. Tools and provisions were taken j to the scene of their work for them. ! Boots, shirts, socks and tobacco were i given to the needy ones, as well as | food. This had to ho done, because they were too destitute to be likely ito bo able to got credit from the I storekeepers. They earned fair wages, j and, to their credit bo it said, most I of the men paid for tho clothes and j stores thus given to them. Most of

the men, we believe, made no complaint of any kind. A few men, however, thought that the measurement of their work waa wrong. The matter came before Parliament, and an expert, selected by the men, waa allowed to re-measure the disputed work. The expert’s results differed from those of the Government Engineer, who, nevertheless, insisted that he was correct. By way of a fair compromise, the Government split the difference. The men were paid half the snm computed to be due to them by the measurement of their own expert. Thus was the dispute settled. As attempts have been made to manufacture political capital out of the dispute, we have briefly recapitulated the true facts. We may remark that for months past several thousand men have been making good wages under the cooperative system. The fact that one or two complaints have been made does not prove that the co-operative system is not a remarkable success. Was such a thing ever heard under tho old system as the failure of a contractor, or a sub-contractor, to realise the anticipated profit out of a contract ? What is claimed for the co-operative system is that in nineteen cases out of twenty it enables men to make full wages for the work they do, and ensures them against losing any part of their wages through the failure or dishonesty of a contractor or sub-contractor. Moreover, the system gives this great advantage. It does not debar secondrate workmen from getting employment. It does nob confine the public works to first-class navvies. Under the co-operative contracts, the man capable of earning nine or ten shillings a day is able to do so, but the less able or skilful workman, who is, nevertheless, capable of earning six or seven shillings a day, has the opportunity of getting employment as one of a party of suitable comrades. This feature of the co-operative system should alone be sufficient, we think, to entitle it to the very fullest trial throughout the Colony.