THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1919. COAL MINERS' CLAIMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17211, 18 August 1919, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1919. COAL MINERS' CLAIMS.

A new phase m the dispute regarding wages and working conditions in the coal mining industry has been developed by the reference of the miners' claims to the Government, not directly by the organisation representing the miners themselves, but through the advocacy of the Alliance of Labour. Intervention by this body is justified on the ground that the members of the industrial groups which it comprises are interested in the preservation of peaceful conditions in the coal mines, because interruption or reduction in the output injures the community. 'i his argument, of course, presents the whole case for the settlement of the dispute. Unfortunately the deputation offered very little assistance towards its solution. Its spokesmen advanced various contentions in support of the refusal by the Miners' Federation to accept the latest offer by the mine owners, they made the increase in the cost of living the ground for proposing a much greater advance in wages than the employers are prepared to concede, and they asked for the nationalisation of the industry. The Prime Minister has agreed that the whole matter shall be considered by Cabinet, and a formal reply made presently. But the difficulty which confronts the Government and the public is that the deputation did not open the way to a settlement. It certainly did not invite the Government to act as arbitrator between owners and miners, nor suggest that the Miners' Federation has in any degree modified its refusal to accept adjudication by a public tribunal. Nationalisation, without any plan for increasing the output and preventing stoppages of mines, can hardly be advocated as a complete remedy. An arresting feature in the negotiations has been the abandonment by the miners of the more extravagant claims in their original demands. The open examination of such proposals as the abolition of the contract system, and the elimination of the second shift, convinced their delegates that public sympathy with legitimate grievances would not sanction innovations which must involve grave injury to the whole community. If the modifications in the miners' attitude during the past fortnight are to be interpreted as concessions to public opinion, neither the miners nor the Alliance of Labour can refuse similar judgment upon the whole matter. They admit that conference with the mine owners is inconclusive. To halt at this stage and insist upon the granting of the claims as they have been revised, without authoritative adjudication of their merits and their results, would simply continue the deadlock and cast suspicion on the federation's professions of anxiety for the country's welfare and desire for a settlement by conciliation. The latest presentation of their case again shows the imperative necessity for a complete investigation. Increases in wages offered by the mine owners have been refused on the ground that they do not secure to the workers in the industry the pre-war standard of comfort. Does the Alliance of Labour suggest that the Cabinet is itself able to determine the cost of living in the mining districts, or that its decision would be accepted by the miners? Mr. Hampton told the Ministers that 55 per cent, was, in his opinion, a moderate estimate, and quoted the Board °£ Trade as fixing a figure " in the vicinity of 52 per cent." He was evidently referring to the board's report on the coal industry, but was misled by a too-hasty perusal. The 52 per cent, which he mentions was the board's record of evidence given by the secretary of the Miners' Federation, in regard only to food , and household requisites. Its own ' estimates, _ which "err, if at all, in ! the direction of over-estimating the rise in expenditure as distinct from ' the rise in prices," comprised food, j rent, fuel and light, boots and clothing and miscellaneous items, . the increase in expenditure on the ] whole cost of living by the mining j. population, between 1913-14 and the i third quarter of 1918, being calcu- 1 , [ated at 35 per cent. Such ques- > * tions as the definition of conditions for all the mines by a "national , agreement" cannot be determined , without a thorough analysis of the . reasons which have previously justi- 1 Bed the acceptance of special pro- ] visions for certain cases. Nor is it , possible to reconcile with the federation's attitude the protest by Mr. ; Roberts that an undertaking to ob- f serve agreements without alteration < luring their currency would deprive . ihe miners of the opportunity to , -evise their wages under the legis- \ ation of last session. The clause * .0 which he appeals applies only to ] iwards or agreements under the •( Arbitration Act. The Miners' Fede•ation cannot seriously claim the benefits of the Arbitration Court nerely as a means of increasing ■vages, and refuse to submit to its ui isdiction in other respects. The deputation asked for a considered pronouncement by the Government on the question of nationali- r sation. The recent report by the t oard of Trade, recommending a B partial control by the State, necessi- c ates consideration and decision on J the point by the Government and B the country s predicament in regard t to coal supplies compels it to s examine this and every other pracy- s cable solution. This extension of c btate enterprise is being seriously a contemplated in England, and while ( the situation in New Zealand does 1 not include the gaining of huge pro- c fits from the industry, the Dominion £ is faced with the fact that at pre- c sent its coal mines do not satisfy its c requirements. Coal is unquestion- s ably a public service, and if private c ownership has proved a failure, j there is a strong case for purchase s

and operation of the mines by the State, The public is, however, not at all satisfied that the elimination of private competition would liberate coal mining from _ industrial strife, nor that under the State as sole employer the mines would be fully manned and the miners produce a reasonable and adequate supply of coal. The State's past experience as coal mine owner would rather tend to the opposite conclusion. In any case the question of nationalisation is one* upon which the Cabinet cannot be expected to give a definite answer. It may inform the Alliance of Labour of its own views, even of proposals to be made to Parliament, but the final decision must be made by the Legislature. In the meantime, the miners have practically gained the Government's undertaking to seek a solution of the dispute, and pending final settlement the public is entitled to claim from them a maximum and unbroken output of coal and the withdrawal of arbitrary restrictions on the industry's manj power. |