WAIHI MINERS' UNION AWARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13454, 3 June 1907, Page 7

WAIHI MINERS' UNION AWARD.

CRITICISMS FROM. MEN'S POINT

OF VIEW.

Mr. J. J. Scanxon-, secretary of the Waihi Miners' Union, writes us as follows —

The long deferred sitting of the Arbitration Court has at length eventuated, and much has been published in Auckland as to the advance in wages which the miners of Waihi have received. We have not yet the award by us in official form, but from what we can gather from the columns of „your valuable paper this much vaunted rise exists only in the imagination of a few, who keep| harping on the subject of will the industry istand it?" It has been said that the increase will amount to'£4ooo per annum, in the Waihi district; but for the life of us we; cannot see how more than one-fourth of, that amount is consistent with facts. Will the industry stand it?.;• They may as well ask if another drop of water on a duck's back will cause.it to drown. Increases there have been, we admit, in some departments, but the most deserving cases, and those in which an increase was absolutely necessary to enable men to live in anything like a decent manner, have been allowed to remain as of old. Let me instance surface labourers. Just imagine, in Waihi, where the cost of living is exceptionally high, and where the climatic conditions in winter time are very rigorous, able-bodied men are working hard for 7s 6d per day, with broken time to reckon on, and the employers' representatives asking if the industry is going to be crippled?" Should men in receipt of this wage, under the conditions I have mentioned, be fathers of families, and thereby have to contend with " all the ills which flesh is heir, to," they cannot possibly pay their way, and feed, clothe, and educate their children. On the other hand, granted they are single, well, they will be single all their lives for all the prospects to the contrary which a life at 7s 6d per day in Waihi affords. Miners in stopes, drives, winzes, etc., have received an increase. Thank you, Mr. Justice Sim ! There is not a single man working for wages for the Waihi Gold Mining Company at the present time in these capacities, and contractors' wages men are receiving 10s per day for such work, some more, according to the nature of the work. I may also mention battery labourers and truckers from stone-crushers, 7s 6d per day. I've said enough about this paltry three-half-crown business, but I cannot refrain from adding that it is monstrous to expect men to have to work as these latter do for such a wage. Their work is very laborious, and what is worse still they have to contend with a continual cloud' of dust all day, which, as we have ample proof in Waihi, plays havoc with a man's lungs, and eventually consigns him to a hospital shelter, shed or some such place. Taken as a whole, the award is of no value to the bulk of the workers, and we do not think the, Waihi Company's dividend will be decreased one iota by this so-called increase, which we are told "may cripple the industry." , Mr. Brown, the employers' representative, when recording his dissent, unburdened himself as follows :,— making the last award Mr. Justice Cooper made the following statement, among others: " The fact that two or three companies in the district are obtaining good returns, and that therefore the rate of wages should be based on the profits made by these companies, affords, in our opinion, no sound reason for fixing a high rate of wages in a district where the great majority of mines are not obtaining payable returns. After the currency of that award had run out the miners themselves renewed it for a period oF two years. Then the union split up into two unions. The effect of this division of the union was to enable them to single out practically the only dividend-paying company in the district." . . , . , - ~ .

Now, sir, it is rather lamentable that a gentleman of Mr. Brown's standing should throw broadcast such misrepresentations as are above contained. Mr. Justice Coopers award, of October, 1901, was made for two ypars. Waihi ; was registered ;a : separate! union in January, 1903 V or;i nearly twelve months before the ; expiration of , that award. ' The Waihi. union then renewed it for a period of two years, and though unsatisfactory in many particulars, . have loyally adhered to it up to the present time. With these facts before us, I think, it will be realised that the accusation of "singling out the only , dividend-paying company in the district" is absolutely without foundation, and was not at any time contemplated by either union. The Waihi union asked for a hew award, hoping to; bring about a fair wage for a fair day's work, and in most branches of labour, I must admit, it has.signally failed. " Having just received a copy of the Reefton award, with which ours compares very unfavourably, we are naturally asking ourselves, "where does the difference come in?"