EMPLOYEES PRIVILEGES.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2646, 15 May 1923, Page 5

EMPLOYEES PRIVILEGES.

REINSTATED BY COUNCIL. TWO "WEEKS' HOLIDAY FOR OUTSIDE STAFF. CASTING VOTE OP MAYOR. The leading hands and gangers in the employ of the Borough Council, addressed themselves to that body last night, asking that they bo placed upon the same footing as formerly with regard t'o statutory holidays and annual leave.

Cr. Hodgens moved the following motion, of which notice had been given:—"That the resolution carried at a previous meeting of the Council, whereby certain privileges enjoyed by the outside staff were withdrawn, be rescinded, and that in future all employees who have been in the employ of the Council for three months or more be allowed an annual holiday of not less than 14 days on full pay."

In speaking to the motion, Cr Hodgens said he did not propose to elaborate, because he was convinced that councillors had already made up their minds how they intended to vote. In a nutshell, he did not think there should be fish made of one and flesh of another. If some Borough employees were enjoyirjg certain concessions, then these should be extended to all. To keep the outside staff satisfied was to get in return greater efficiency, and this was the aim of every business. Cr. Canton seconded. He had openly stated his views before the ratepayers, and the latter had made a general endorsement of these at the poll. Cr. Oram expressed himself as somesomewhat disappointed with Cr. Hodgen's speech. If it meant* making fish of one and flesh of another by not giving the men 14 days' holiday on full pay, then it applied equally, by their not paying the inside staff for -every hour they worked overtime. Cr. Jackson said he had prepared a return embodying the names of 50 employees and covering a period of six months. These 50 men earned £5,319 IS/9, or per man, £lO9 8/4 for the six months. Under the Arbitration Court award, if they worked full time they would earn £4 4/2, whereas the average weekly earning was £4 1/10. It would be seen, then, that the difference was not great, and showed very little lost time over the period. He had also approached contractors, and in one instance was shown where a man had earned £94 5/6, another, £SS 18/8, and the other £9O .1/3, which showed that' the Borough men were earning more money than .outside employees. Further, it meant that if the resolution was earned, it would cost the ratepayers the sum of £1,117 per annum. He opposed the motion on those grounds, and because it was not a fair proposition, when the men were actually working under better conditions than private employees. Cr. Graham moved an amendment that "twelve, months" be substituted for "three months," and this was seconded by the Mayor. Cr. Fitzhcrbcrt look the view that whilst recognising that the outside employees should get full privileges he thought thly should be placed in a different category. He moved a further amendment that fourteen days be substituted by the words seven days.

On taking a vote, the original motion, embodying Cr. Graham's amendment, was carried, Cr. Fitzherbert's amndment' lapsing. The division was: For, His Worship the Mayor, Crs Hodgens, Canton. Graham, McLeavey, Against. Crs. Oram, Jackson, West and Fitzherbert.