Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19218, 8 July 1924, Page 6

A kesolutiox on the part of the Wellington Labour Representation Committee condemnatory of the “vindictive action” of the Minister of Railways in “forcing tho 48-hour week on the railwayman before tho tribunal had an opportunity of adjudicating on the dispute” is not altogether in the unexpected order of things. In certain quarters the discovery of the “vindictiveness” manifested by the Government in connection with tho settlement of the recent strike has evidently been gaining ground, so to speak. The resolution referred to has drawn a protest from the Minister of Railways in self-defence. Naturally Mr Coates resents being branded in this way as tho “vindictive” administrator of his important Department. He appeals to tho facts in tho case, with which ho is much more conversant than the Wellington Labour Representation Committee, and this not for tho first time, in answer to imputations of a similar purport. The matter was brought up in the House during tlie recent debate on the Imprest Supply Bill. In the course of his justification of the reversion to the 48-hour week, the Minister was reported os stating:—“The whole matter has been fully thrashed out. The men made an unconditional surrender, and they were told that they had to get back to work before the Government would discuss matters further. After two days they were informed that they would have to go hack to the 48-hours week. The President of tho A.S.R.S. said that though they did' not agree to it they would have to accept it.” This, taken with the rest of tho Minister’s explanation, seems sufficiently to shmv that in his interviews with the President of the A.S.R.S. he made it clear that it was the Government’s intention to put the railwayman hack on the 48-hour week basis. Tho instructions to that effect were issued considerably later. Clearly talk of “victimisation” in the circumstances is quite unwarranted. When on the subject of railways it is of interest to note that, according to a Sydney Labour journal, the salaries of tho two railway experts, Sir Sam Fay and Sir Vincent Raven, over a period of three months, during which they have been inquiring into the New South Wales railways, have amounted in the case of live former to £6OOO, and in the ease of the latter to £3OOO, while the total expenses of the Commission, including secretaries’ salaries and travelling expenses, are set down at £11,400 for the same period, though this is referred to as “only in J

tho nature of an interim payment.’’ While a report from the exports named upon the Xcw Zealand railways will be welcome, it is to bo hoped that tho dominion will not bo expected to pay for it on the scale suggested by tho foregoing figures.

The strike in the building trade in. the Old Country can only contribute to the acuteness of the housing problem, to make a substantial effort to relieve which Mr Ramsay MacDonald’s Government is committed by its election pledges. The National House-Building Committee appointed by the Government to explore remedies for the housing shortage has recommended a scheme extending over 15 years, tho rate of building to rise from 90.000 houses in the first year to 223,000 and to continue at that figure until, if possible, two and a-hali million houses are built. Tho unions have signified their preparedness to accept a much larg3r proportion of apprentices in return for guarantees of continuous work. The fact that the scheme has been preceded since the war by four varied attempts, in four conflicting and divergent policies, to solve the same problem has not been deemed to attach to it any peculiar measure of hopefulness. As for the trouble in. tho building trade, that has now been browing for some time past. It is said that 600.000 men are now involved in the strike, which means a substantial addition to tho ranks of the unemployed until a settlement is reached. The crux of the dispute is the question of flic wages that shall obtain in the building trade. In May last a ballot of the operatives was taken upon tho employers’ offer to advance wages a half-penny per hour, wages to bo stabilised until January 1625, “togethci with agreement to a full inquiry into the full incidence of guaranteed time, and permission being given to the London region to consider special circumstances.” The offer was rejected by a large majority, and by a majority of three to one the operatives declared in favour of strike action failing an improved offer. The original demand of the employees was for an advance of twopence an hour. The reopening of negotiations in the interim lias not been productive of Satisfactory results, though tho present turn of the dispute seems to have come rather unexpectedly. Meanwhile the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives has the cordial congratulations of the Communist Party in Great Britain.