WORK AND WAGES

Southland Times, Issue 19522, 23 May 1922, Page 5

WORK AND WAGES

WAGE REDUCTIONS OPPOSITION IN AUSTRALIA (By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association) SYDNEY, May 22. The central branch of the Australian Workers’ Union has issued a statement that the union always favoured arbitration, but when so obviously unjust an award was given as Mr Justice Powers’ decision in the shearers’ case it was doubtful if members would continue the policy. A meeting of the bush workers’ propaganda group passed a resolution in favour of the Brisbane award of 1921 and opposed to the reductions suggested by Mr Justice Powers. Steps will shortly be taken to devise means for resisting the latter. MASS MEETING OF PASTORAL WORKERS. SYDNEY, May 22. (Received May 22, 10.50 p.m.) The council of the Australian Work era’ Union decided to call a mass meeting of shearers, shed hands, cooks and pastoral workers for Monday next to discuss what action should be taken in regard to Mr Justic Power’s award.

AFFAIRS IN NEW ZEALAND, THE SEAMEN’S DISPUTE. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 22. The seamen’s dispute occupied the Arbitration Court to-day. Mr Smith, in opening the case for the employers, said the New Zealand Industrial Seamen’s Association consisted of three unions, at Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin. Wages and conditions for seamen and firemen had not been before the Court since March, 1906, when awards were made for the districts mentioned. Various agreements had been made since then between the shipowners and the union. The present position was that the basic wage for able seamen and trimmers was £l5 7/- a month, an increase over 1914 of £7 7/- a month or 91.87 per cent., and the overtime rate was increased from 1/3 and 1/6 to 2/9 per hour, and as a result of the eight-hour day and other improvements payments of overtime were now nearly three times as much as they were in 1914. The actual increase in earnings was much greater than the percentage mentioned owing to increased overtime and onerous working conditions.

Mr Smith then went on to deal with clauses in the employers’ proposals and the union’s counter-proposals. He said employers were asking for a return to the rates fixed by the 1917 agreement, but the union was asking for increased wages based on a daily rate which involved an additional £2 per month over the 1920 agreement with the addition, of a bonus of 10/which was granted by the Court. If the fortuitous increase of 17/- per month recently granted was taken into consideration the increase asked for was £1 3/- per month. The employers strongly objected to the fixing of seamen’s wages on a daily basis as the invariable practice was a monthly basis. Mr Smith continued that if the New Zealand rates were to be determined by the Australian courts the sooner New Zealand became a State of the Commonwealth the better, so that its people would have a voice in the making of the laws. He mentioned a statement by Mr Young at a meeting of the Conciliation Council in Dunedin. If correctly reported Mr Young had said that he did not wish to make anything in the nature of a threat, but he said emphatically and deliberately that under no circumstances whatever would they tolerate a decrease in anything that they had at the present moment. If this was the attitude of the union it could only mean that if the Court’s award was not what was wanted there would be trouble of some kind or other, and therefore the Court was urged to make it a condition of the award that the union should give a bond for a substantial sum, conditioned against any two or more of its members in combination failing to accept work, as a means of enforcing compliance with any demand. If, unfortunately, the union was misguided enough to adopt such a course as was hinted at by Mr Young it was only fair that the employers should not have their hands in any way fettered in dealing with the situation, and should have the option of treating the award as null and void. Mr Young was also reported to have said a.t Dunedin that there was a difference in wages of £5 10s between what the employers offered and the union asked, and he suggested that that should be divided by half and settled on that basis. This would be a reduction of the basic rate by £1 12s per month. He urged the Court to confine its attention to the 1917 agreement and the alterations asked for by the employers, which were in every way reasonable and just to the workers. MINERS’ PAY AND CONDITIONS. WILLINGTON, May 22. The latest reduction of wages ordered by the Arbitration Court in a special order in pursuance of a clause in the different mining awards has given rise to a good deal of dissatisfaction among the miners, particularly on the West Coast, where it is said a goou many miners arc working short time, Reduced wages, however, are not causing so much concern as certain' alterations in conditions provided for in tin awards. The miners are anxious for son.s readjustment in conditions, and it is stated that there is a movement on foot for holding a conference to have the question of conditions reviewed. No overtures for such a conference have been made to the coal-owners by the Miners’ Federation, but it is understood that the miners on the West Coast wish that some dur '* | «ion on the matter should be arranged.