The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1918. TRAMWAY DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 10088, 30 September 1918, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1918. TRAMWAY DISPUTE

The tramway dispute still drags its weary length along, much to the inconvenience and discomfort of tramway pasengers, especially of those living or having business in the distant suburbs. The tramwaymon have been accused—not altogether without reason —of having adopted go-slow tactics in the running of the trams; tut the City Council has also been going slow with regard to the settlement of the dispute. As a matter of fact, it was the go-slow policy of the council that provoked the .adoption of a similar policy by the men. The tramwaymen went before the council in a perfectly proper manner, and represented that they were not getting a decent living wage. But the council, instead of calling a special meeting to deal with the question forthwith, allowed it to stand over for a fortnight, and then further postponed it on account of the opening of the Otira tunnel. It is hardly to bo wondered at that under such circumstances the men became somewhat impatient. Undoubtedly the men were ill-advised in going slow. The great inconvenience suffered by the general public as a result of such tactics, was hardly likely to win public sympathy for their cause. Undoubtedly the men should have strictly adhered to the leter of their agreement, trusting to Ihe legitimate .presentation of their case to establish the justice of their demands and secure for them the increase desired. BuT. as we have indicated above, the council was hardly in a position to throw the first stone; since the councillors themselves were not without sin in the matter. And, manifestly, the council would better have conserved its 1 dignity, npt by somewhat truculently standing upon it, but by promptly setting to work to secure a just and fair settlement of the dispute. The action of the men may have been—to uao the vernacular —“a little over the odds” ; but so, assuredly, was the declaration of the Mayor—“ The council will not negotiate with industrial rebels. Let the union get ‘on side’ and carry out the conditions of the agreement which was entered into by many men who are now engaged in the great struggle to destroy tho brute force that tramples on agreements and violates sacred pledges.” These be brave words. But such bravo words are apt to engender heat; and light, not heat, is what the situation requires. Tho general public, we are convinced, will not stand for talk about the strict letter of agreements, when the question at issue is whether or not the City Council is paying tho tramwaymen a proper living wage- The general public expect the City Council to set a good example as an employer of labour. They also, of course, wish the tramways to pay their way; and they are inclined to tho opinion that, given good business management, the. tramways can be made to pay, and pay well, while paying all employees a proper living wage. It may be argued that tho living wago cannot bo paid without a corresponding increase in fares- But the general public have not quito_ forgotten—even if the city councillors have all forgotten—that when the Constable street extension was opened house rents along tho line of route were promptly raised fis a week, or £lB per annum, though the 1 owners had neither built the trams nor wero engaged, whether as motormen or as conductors, or in any other capacity, in tho running of the cars. And the general public are inclined to think that, if the City Council wore only moro strictly businesslike and less unjustly generous with regard to Wellington landlords—if, in short, the council devised some method of levying upon these and other tram-increased rentals in order to at least help to pay tho capital charges upon the tramway undertaking—it would bo possible to pay the tramwaymen’ a living wage, not only without increasing the fares to tho general public, hut while appreciably reducing the fares.

lie tliat as it may, the mon are clearly entitled to a decent living

jj-ngc; and entitled to it on tho basis of a forty-oight-lumr week, without having to put in from 17 to 27 hours’ overtime per fortnight to eke out their earnings. If forty-eight hours be taken as a reasonable week’s work, it is manifestly unreasonable that a man should have to work'as a regular thing several raoro hours per week to bring his wage up to a living standard, which, for married railway-men, the Government estimate at £3 Gs a week. Tried by this test, the tramwaymen’s wages schedule, even with the -5 per cent, bonus, stands- condemned, as tho following table shows, except in tho case of the highest grade of motormen : 1 48 hours’ wages, plus 5 per cent. Grade. bonus. Motormen.

i-±u iiu i/ij pel uuui - ■»« "

It must be remembered, moreover, that while the Government consider £3 6s a week a reasonable living wage for a married railwayman, and while no married man in the railway service is getting loss than £3 6s a week, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants does not by any means agree with the Government on that point, but holds that the men are entitled to a substantial advance on that sum. And, in view of the fact that the purchasing power of “tho shrinking sovereign” is now down to 13e 6jd, who can say that it has not reason on its side ? In his ‘“Monthly Abstract of Statistics,” tho Government Statistician shows that as compared with the meat, groceries, and dairy produce, that a sovereign would buy, on tho average of the four years 1909-13, the “rola-ivo worth,” or purchasing power, of the sovereign is now only ISs 6id—a loss of practically 6s 6d of purchasing power on every £l. A wage of £2 per week to-day is thus worth- only 27s as compared with 40s before tho war; a wage of £2 10s per week is worth only 83s 9d in place of 50s; and a wage of £3 a week was worth only 40s 6d in place of 60s. But the prices of boots and clothing have gone up even more than food prices; and it may well be, as tho workers contend, that the actual increase in the cost of living is really 50 per cent, or even more, which would make tho figures considerably worse. As a matter of fact, another table in the “Monthly Abstract of Statistics” shows that in Wellington, the dearest of the four chief centres, in the Juno quarter of tho present year it cost 30s 2Jd to purchase tho moat, .groceries, and dairy produce, which, on the average of the four chief centres in 1909-13, would have cost 20s only. This, which takes no account of boots and clothing or house rent —the last a notoriously high item in Wellington—goes to show that in this city the man who got £2 per week before the war should be getting £3 a week now to give him the same purchasing powerthat the man who got £2 10s a week should now he getting £3 15s; and tho man who got £3 per week before the war should now bo getting £4 10s. Whichever basis bo taken, the wages of the tramwaymen for a forty-eigbt-hour week are clearly inadequate. On the basis of the 13s 6)d sovereign, the £3 7s 3d of the highest grade motorman is only equal to a prewar wage of about £2 4s 9d; while the £3 0s lid of the lowest-grade motorman and the highest-grado conductor is only equal to a pre-war wage of £2 Is Sd; and the £2 15s 8d of the lowestgrade conductor is only equal to £1 17s 8d a week before the war. This position cannot bo met by the argument that tho overtime worked by the men brings their actual earnings up to a good deal more than the sums mentioned. For, manifestly, if fortyeight hours bo a reasonable week’s work, that reasonable week’s work should earn a decent living wage; and it is only reasonable that any time worked in excess of the forty-eight hours per week should command correspondingly more than a living wage.

£ s. d. ..373 36 at 1/3} per hour .352 13 at 1/3 per hour .... ..330 50 at l/2i per hour .. 3 0 11 Conductors. ,. 3 0 11 . 2 18 10 .. 2 16 9 ,. 2 15 8