WAGES OF THE HARTLEY AND RILEY DREDGE'S CREW. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Witness, Issue 2410, 10 May 1900, Page 22

WAGES OF THE HARTLEY AND RILEY DREDGE'S CREW. TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — The question of the remuneration of the crew of the Hartley and Riley dredge hu.3 lately been discussed, and it has been .as ■sumed that we receive higher wages in accord with our lesponsibility. We wish, through yoc.r columns, to give this our emphatic denial. We, however, consider we should be better paid, for the crew of a diedge with such a record v,3 are, perhaps, more poorly paid than many crews on the river, for it is a well-known fact that there are numerous dredges at the prsasni day paying their crews a bonus in the form of a certain percentage over rad above a certiin number of ounces won. This co-operative system has been found 'no I oniy to encourage crews in every way, but in Consequence considerably benefits the shareholder. Then, again, we recognise we have a much greater responsibility than other crews, not only inasmuch as a greater amount of gold practically goes through our hands, as the numerous and persistent attempts winch are continually being made by speculators and others to buy our information, which, in consequence of our position, we have priority of. Now, we knew the directors of our company have the fullest confidence m the honesty and integrity of the crew, and know that because a dredgeman weari a suit of dungarses and has a dirty face is no reason why he is not equally as honest as those who by their cuffs and collars arc supposed to monopolise the honesty of this world. Had we chose.i to do otherwise, there is no doubt we could -have made a mint out of cur information, but wo reali&e our fira'. duty is to our directors, and therefore we consider our position does not morally justify us in interesting ourselves in any way in the t;took of the company. Now, Sir, considering ail circumstances, we ask Are we anticipating too much when we say we are looking forward to a bonus on the sliding =cale according to the quantity of gold won? — We are, etc.,

li ATC&Y GR AH Aftl. Peter M'Laren.

On behalf of "the crew of Hartley and Riley, Cicniwell. Cromwell, April 30.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, — I read in your issue of Friday last a letter signed by Messrs Graham and M'Laren, on behalf of the crew of the Hartley and Riley dredge, and deshing that the crew should participate in the weekly earnings of the dredge according to a sliding scale. They inqiiire if they are asking too much in asking this. % As one who has been interested in several dredging and other " gold " concerns, I answer yes. I cannot see the reasonableness of their demand. The crew at present receive the usual wages paid for the class of work which they do, and very good wages they are, as things go. A dredgeman's lot is by no means an unhappy one, ar.d is much superior to that of many who receive far less ■ pay. But I do not grudge them what they get: I only fail to see why they should expect more. The work done is the same whether the dredge gets much gold, little gold, or no gold. A dredgeman's, or indeed a diedgemaster's, capacity or activity is not to be estimated by the weekly returns of the dredge. Why should a dredgeman on a dredge which happens, by the excellence of the claim, to get 500oz be paid more than one on a dredge which happens by the poverty of its claim to get soz? Ho has nothing to do with the good return any more than with the poor one. Then, would a crew bo willing to share losses as well as gains? Why not the one as well as the other? There was no word of any such arrangement when the Hartley and Riley dredge started at first, and got deeper and deeper into debt every day. And why should a dredgehand share profits any moie than a farmhand or a shophand ? Each of the latter is paid according to the current scale. Why should the former be treated exceptionally? I see no reason for doing so. The writers place much stress on their keeping facts to themselves, whose divulgence might be turned to profit. As a dredge is generally worked, a dredgeman can only get such information, as a rule, by prying into what does not concern him, or by being where he has no call 1o be. Some hands certainly do get to know a iid to let out how the dredge is doing, but that is recognised as a breach of trust, as similar conduct ou the part, say, of a bank accountant is regarded. The returns of a certain well-known dredge managed to leak out until a certain dredgeman was treated as the bank oSL-

cial would be treated in similar circumstances. Such treatment would prevent dredgehand9 yielding to the temptation to which Messrs Graham and M'Laien refer. One who had been, caught transgressing might not get a chance of transgressing very soon again. Indeed, it might be well to take temptation out of the way; of the writers if they are going to adopt tha tone they have adopted, or to take them out of the way of it. Let ttfbrn realise that they are not indispensable. Others will do their work quite as well as they, and the dred'gemaster can effectually prevent them or others from knowing what they have no business to know.

I think that a, bonus might be given to the crew once in a way — or to such as have shown, themselves in every way true to their trust, — but I do not see why the Hartley and Riley crew should be placed at any such advantage as they desire over their feilow-craftsmen in other dredges for doing no more than these others do. — I am, etc.,

Shareholder,.