The Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. TUESDAY. MARCH 9. 1920. THE RAILWAYMEN.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XLV, Issue 12019, 9 March 1920, Page 4

The Rangitikei Advocate. TWO EDITIONS DAILY. TUESDAY. MARCH 9. 1920. THE RAILWAYMEN.

IT is easy to understand the’ dissatisfaction of the railwaymen with the report of Judge Stringer, for it is assnredly behiud'the'timoß/and his ruling does not award compensate for the [increased cost of living. Everything has been mounting up in cost, and the process is not only continuing daily, bst each advance[accelerates’Jits speed."[["While *t is going on it is the duty of the State to see that its employees do not suffer. If it is compelled through making proper provision for them, to increase the charges to the public, that, though regrettable, will be unavoidable, and indeed may help to compel more earnest attention being given to the great problem of the day—the check to the increasing cost of living, and restoration of the purchasing power of money earned. On previous pccasions we have pointed out' that the railwaymen have patiently borne theirgrieyances, even at critical times, and v.e consider they are entitled to fair treatment, They are decidedly of opinion that the Stringer report does not give them a fair deal, and on the face of it, their opinion is justified. Of course it does not follow that they would be justified, in holding up services, because State employees have no more right to do this than soldiers would have to mutiny and throw done their arms. In this case the remedy lies in the usual method of “passing it on” to the public, which is adopted by all employers affected by adverse awards, or increased coat of operation. It would be disagreeable to the public, and might affect the volume of freight and passenger traffic, but there seems to be no other course open it justice is to be done and satisfaction given. One feature we do not like in the Stringer report is the distinction between single and married in the matter of pay. An employer is not required to distinguish between the married and the unmarried., It may be, indeed, that the latter is onlv saving up to enable him to become the former, but apart from this the only question in which the employer is concerned is that of the value of work done by the employee. In the State service men are all equal in this respect, whether they are married or single. Their condition as such does not affect the employer any more than would the question of whether they were Catholics or Presbyterians, High Church or Low Church, Pagans or Latter Day Saints. We sincerely trust that the dissatisfaction now existing will_ be removed, and that‘at the same time those administering the affairs o i the State will endeavour to remove the causes that are operating to the special injury of all who are in receipt of fixed salaries or incomes, such as our railwaymen.