THE TRAMWAYS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17926, 21 October 1918, Page 5

THE TRAMWAYS.

UiNION’S REPLY TO BOARD.

A CONFERENCE REFUSED.

STRICT ADHERENCE TO RULES THREATENED.

What is described as the largest meeting of the Christchurch Tramway Employees’ Union held since the formation of the. union was held in the small hours of yesterday morning, and as an outcome of a discussion of the board s reply to the union’s request for ' increased wages it was resoived to ask tho board to grant the increases as from to-day (uonday)', and it was further resolved that, starting to-day, all members of the union should adhere strictly to the instructions as contained in the rule book and weekly budget issued by the board to each employee. Mr Hiram Hunter, secretary of the union, explained to a reporter last evening that hitherto employees had. succeeded in keeping thp trams to schedule time by individual and unauthorised expedients- In future the rules and regulations would be adhered to, and running to schedule time .would be a secondary consideration. He added that overcrowding was a prolific source of delay in tramway traffic. Acting on instructions from tho union. Mr Hunter has forwarded the following letter to tho general manager of the Christchurch tramways : “ 1 have been instructed by the union to acknowledge tho receipt of your letter of October 18 in reply to the union’s letter of October 16 requesting increases m wages sufficient to place tho local men on an equal basis with the Wellington tramwaymen. In reply 1 have been directed to inform you that the conference suggested by you is considered unnecessary, as the union consider? it is entitled to the terms agreed upon at Wellington after the series of conferences which were held there prior to the settlement being arrived at. The employees of tho Christchurch Tramway Board are not prepared to agree to accept any less than their 00-worker3 of Wei ington, and therefore claim that the rates of wages granted at Wellington for the various classes of workers be paid by tho Christchurch Tramway Beard from Monday, October 21. “ The present aivaixl was determined by the rates agreed upon in Wellington last year a few weeks prior to tho agreement here. Such being the case, the Christchurch men aro entitled to equal consideration after what has happened in Wellington. The Arbitration Court, in its memorandum to the timber workers’.award, July 19, 1918, expressed itself as follows:—'ln the Court's opinion, nothing is more likely to cause unrest and dissatisfaction than a difference in the wages of workers in the same industry in adjoining districts.’ The truth of the foregoing is exemplified in the present dispute. “lour reiteration of fact that an agreement is in existence is met by ths contention that minimum rates only are therein prescribed. The Hon W. F. Massey, Minister of Labour, when replying to a protest made by a certain union against the low rate of wages given by the Arbitration Court, stated in his letter: ‘lt should, of course, be understood that the rates fixed by the Court in awards are merely the minimum rates of employment, and any employee is at liberty to stipulate with his employer that he bo paid a higher wage. Anyhow, the real test of the amount of, wages earned is the purchasing power, and an award that fixes wages without fixing the price of commodities is an unjust and one-sided affair.

“ If the Christchurch Tramway Board had any respect for . agreements it might have a right to dictate to other people, for after giving an undertaking not to reduce the earning power of the employees, under the present agreement, by reducing the roster time, it did reduce the earning power of the lowest paid men, viz., first year conductors, who receive the munificent wage of Is lsd per hour, by four hours and ten minutes per week thus placing them in a far worse position than before the rise in wages was given. Reference to the Court records will prove that the union has frequently had to resort to legal proceedings to compel the board to observe the terms of any award.

‘ The board usually offered a farthing per hour increase and the paltry increases received by its employees during the term of its existence have been wrung f-rom it one farthing at a time, until it has become known as the farthing-per-hour board.’ “ The rates of pay now claimed cannot be deemed unreasonable, in fact if they are compared with the rates paid to other classes of workers, they are low indeed. When computing the fairness or otherwise of the rates asked for it has to be remembered that a tramway worker often has his eight hours spread over twelve hours on broken shifts. This means in effect that he is on duty for 72 hours weekly, and he receives payment for 48 hours at Is IJd per hour. He is nwnv from his home from early morn until dewy eve for the princely income of £2 13s per week. This is not enough to enable him to exist even at the present price of commodities, therefore, he has to work on Sundays. to earn sufficient to pay his way. This is not an overdrawn picture, as you are well aware,- and i.t is a standing disgrace to the tramway authorities that such sweated conditions of errmloyment should be permitted. "You contend that the board is not warranted, as trustees for the general public in handinn- over to its employees the large sum asked for. The union is not asking for anything of the kind. The board’s employees are not highwaymen, they are merely asking for more adequate remuneration for the splendid services • thev render to the general public, and they challenge you to prove that any of their claims are unreasonable or more than sufficient to provide a decent standard of living. They are equallv sure that if the general public were fully aware of the conditions of eTrfployment of their employees that they would not tolerate them for one day longer. The union is convinced of the justice of jis claims and. therefore, has every confidence that they should be granted in full by the board without any further delay.”