PAY OF CIVIL SERVICE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 28 June 1924, Page 9

PAY OF CIVIL SERVICE.

I Claims of the Railwaymen. GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS CHALLENGED. By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, June 27. In the House this afternoon, the Imprest Supply Bill No. 1 was brought clown by Governor-General’s message. Mr Wilford said he proposed to say something with regard to the recent treatment of a section of the Railway Service in the matter of working hours, lie produced two agreements mado between the Government and the Railway Servants in 1920 and 1921, providing for a 44-hour week. Under this ; system, the Department admitted making a profit of 1.97 per cent., and to-day the profit was admitted to be 32 per cent. A section of railway sen-ants still worked 44 hours per week, and all might still have been doing so but for the fact that an tmfortunate strike took place. He admitted that by striking, the men concerned had broken an agreement made between them and the Government. but the Government had rather unfairly taken the advantage to force upon the men a 4S-hour week. Tim was more regrettable because while this was being done by the Government on one hand, the Government had set up a Commission to inquire into working hours and conditions. While this inquiry was in progress the Government should not have prejudiced the position of the men by insisting upon one section working 48 hours. Ho thought the step taken lyv the Government could scarcely be defended on tbo ground of economy, but be would be pleased to bear wliat the Minister had to say on that point. Notice of Amendment. Mr Wilford said his side of the House had no time for strike methods, and did not countenance them, but to test the feeling of the House, he proposed to move as an amendment to tho motion before the House: “That this House, while opposing direct action and strike . methods, affirms the desirability of a 44-hour working ‘week for railway employees, in terms of the agreements in 192021.” The Minister's Defence. The Hon. J. E. Coates said he did not propose to go into the details of tho agreements referred to by Mr "Wilford, but ho desired to say that there was something of a catch-cry in the term 48 hours. Tho plain fact was that the overhead expenses of railways had so increased, that it was impossible foi them to run the railways profitably, unless some alteration were made jn working conditions. At the same turn , people were asking for reductions in all directions, and nothing in the" way of concessions was possible until tt position was improved, iio laiway sa> tern in tho world was running on a ‘tehour week. It had been done formerly but what had happened.- I recistly tinsame conditions had arisen ni 0 <- countries as had now arisen here ana 48 hours had been reverted to oEewhere, as well as in Now Zealand. Ho denied that there had been any bleach of faith with the men on the P»f «' the Government, nor did tho Government propose to dismiss large nmnbei s> oi* men, nor overwork those employed. On the other hand, the basic wage ot all men affected would be materially increased by the change. To reinstate 44-hour week would cost the Department something like £529 000 annually, and it was quite clear if Urn railway employees were to retain their pi ie4s, and if tho railways were to successfully compete with other forms ot transport, then they must not unfanlj handicap those railways. If the handicap continued, in five yeai ? jt would not be a question of dismissing -0 . men, but inore like 5000. He strongj .v repudiated any suggestion uh.it tho policy of the Government was to gno concessions to settlers at thet expense of the railway workers. then poticy wns to see that both public and worker get a fair doal.

Amendment Ruled Out. Mr Massey deprecated Mr M'lltord action in introducing into the debate a matter which at present was sub judice. He quoted authority m suppoit of his contention. At present the Arbitration 1 Court was considering this dispute, and he submitted it was entirely wrong te permit the debate to proceed which ■ inierht tend to milueuce the decision o. the Court. He therefore asked tho Speaker to rule the amendment moved bv Mr Wilford out of order. “Mr Wilford. in reply, contended that the matter was not before a properly, constituted Arbitration Court but before a special tribunal, and did not come within tho rule quoted by tLPrime Minister. . , The Sneaker said he must o-ree with the contention of the Prime Mimstei, that the railway dispute was before a court of law, and be must therefore rule Mr Willord’s amendment out o, order. _ . . The Root Trouble. Mr Holland contended that it mathno difference whether the rai.v..u workers broke then- agreement twtl the Government or not. Ibe loot trouble was certain bad economic conditions, which so long as they cmMoI must produce discontent and strikes ft was the dutv of Parliament to first remove those bad conditions, »nd so -ret rid of strike possibilities. Ho ua proceeding to discus? the finest ion o. fortv-eigbt hours for railway m_ ; when the Speaker ruled, m view of hiprevious decision, that tins matte, could not he discussed. Mr Holland accepted that ruling, buasked the Government to make a definite statement to the efleet did not pronose to attack the 44-ion, week at present on loved bv the loro, men mid cleaners, because tb-'-re was a o-ene.-al impression abroad that such was the Government’s intention. then proceeded to argue that _tuc salaries of public servants right through the service, should at least be such as to enable them to live in comfort- and bring up families decently .

Labour’s Amendment. Mr Holland moved ns an amendment to tlm motion before the House: “Th°t tlm vLnn <1 mr-mn-, the salaries of the Public Servants whose ease, is not at present- subiudice. and who are in receipt o. es--thnn £SOO per annum 1014 standard -is exm-esserl 111 purcha-ing pow ei . nod that the Hour" affirms the deslrahilitv of 44-houvs as working week - for all such noblm corvanbs.” Mr Fraser seconded th« _eniendi>se»i. . The discussion was car-ied on I" Labour members, on the lines of their previous sn-'a i-e'-s, ..... . 1 Libera* Attitude.

Mr M’nfurJ ;n that he ami hiparlv bad ahvu.vi resisted c»*- m --ibirv of Ci’-fn and under, -vul we-c nrepared in do s„ again, bu< M.ev ,-mU „ot snmiorl tlm proposal m Holland’s amendmen! to rai--e the linni

to £SOO. 11 Air Holland wanted tiia support of the Libeiaio lor ins amend* meni, tic uuisL (mng ins policy into line with tneirs.

After further discussion, the Hon. G. J. Anderson (.Minister of Labour), sa:d the Government had been charged with gross extravagance, but when they insisted on saving the country over two millions by reducing the bonuses to public, servants, they werq immediately charged with parsimony. The House aujourned at 5.30 till 7.30. The Cost. When the House resumed in tha evening, Mr Andtrsun contended tha amendment aimed at putting tho salaries back to 1914 level, which would cost ai least a mil lion and a half sterling. Tie contended salaries now paid really amounted to very nearly the 1914 basis. Civil servants were in

a better position than the private individual, having a settled income and superannuation and other privileges.

Air Holland: He pays for it. The Minister replied that the coun try contributed a large amount to superannuation mud. Liberal Side Defended. Mr Yeitch defended the Liberal members from the attack made by tha Labour speakers, on the attitude assumed by the former towards the question of public service salaries in recent sessions. He combatted the statement by the Minister of Railways that the number of men employed in the Railway Department had increaset* by 4000. Of the increased costs ot carrying on the railways in 1922-23, namely £1,531,000 (wages only accounted for £860,000), the rest was absorbed in coal and various stores.

“I do say this, however, we cannon go on having the service and continue the superannuation at the same time, ,, ‘ said Mr Veitch. The men should re« member that even if as the result of the strike they had forced an agreement to higher wages, they must in the end come to Parliament to vote tho money to pay them. He appealed to the House .not to look severely upon the mistake made by the men recently. Mr Yeitch advocated the elimination of the highly paid section of railway officers from the superannuation system, because they had an unfair advan tage over the lower naid section of the second division. The high officials should have a scheme of their own. The debate was carried on by Mess , 's O. Hawken. IT. A. Armstrong. J. Morn, R. Masters, E. J. Howard. The Speaker’s Mistake. Just before ttie supper adjournment, the Speaker interrupted the debate to make all explanation regarding liis ruling on Mr Wiiford’s amendment, which lie had disallowed on the ground that lie believed that as -railway matters were sub-judiee. He had sines discovered that this was not so. Tho members of the Arbitration Court had been appointed to a Special Board to inquire into matters affecting the railway service, and this Board could only mado recommendations. It was not a Court of Law. Had he known these facts, lie would not have ruled as he did.

Mr Wilford asked the Speaker for his ruling, and said he had no inten tion of taking advantage of the mistake tliat had been made.

The Prime Minister accepted the Speaker’s ruling and the incident ended. '

Creating Privileged Class. The Hon. W. Downie Stewart said in spite of the differences between the Liberal and Labour parties, both were rivalling each other in creating a Civil Service as a privileged class, who were not to bear the burdens which the ordinary pitmens have to bear. That was a policy which must end in disaster.

The Prime Minister’s Reply. Mr Massey said they had heard much regarding the concessions to the public service during the debate, hut he would like to inform the House that the Treasury just reminded him that he would have to provide £170,000 this year for superannuation to public servants alone. He had heard that he was to be prevented from reducing taxation, but he maintained that no country’ could succeed if the people were too heavily taxed. He proposed to. ask Parliament to reduce taxation this year. It was humiliating to see the manner in which the two opposition parties were seeking to obtain support from the Public Service, but he warned them that if much more of that sort of tnihg went on it would result in the whole question of Public Service salaries being taken out of the hands of the House and given over to the Arbitration Court. He denied that the Government had ever reduced salaries—as had been so often stated they had reduced bonuses. He quoted figures supplied by the Public Service Commissioner to show how the Government had increased salaries in the lower grades of the Public Service since 1913, and even taking in the increased cost of living these people were never better treated in their lives.

Speaking of the railway service, the Prime Minister referred feelingly to the responsibilities of the locomotive men, and he hoped there would never be anything in the nature of a reduction of their salaries or an extension of hours. Defeat of Amendment. After further discussion the division was called for on Mr Holland’s amendment, which was rejected: For the amendment . . .. 17 Against 55 Only Labour members voting for tlie amendment. Mr O'Brien, who did not vote, paired for the amendment with Mr Burnett, who is absent, through illness. Liberals Move Again. The debate was continued by Mr Montieth, after which Mr Sidey moved an amendment on similar lines to the Labour amendment, but substituting £220 for £SOO. Mr Holland stated that the Labour Pany, consistent with its general attitude, would support the amendment.

Mr Massey said: If this amendment was carried, it must be regarded by my Government as a recommendation from the House. In that case, it would supersede the recommendations of the Board of Arbitration which has gone so carefully into the whole question. Their deliberations, conducted with so much dignity, would thus be turned into a farce. Second Defeat. On the division the amendment waa lost . For the amendment 34 Against 37

Mr Wilford Again. Mr AYilford then moved his amendment, which the Speaker had previously ruled out of order, which was supported by Mr Smith (Taranaki) who discussed the railwnynicn’s grievances. . . .

The Hon. G. J. Contes (Minister of Railways) in reply to Mr Smith, defended his methods m negotiating with tho railwavinen. No Minister could possibly have done more than he did to avert the strike.

Third Amendment Defeated. After one o'clock, tlm debate "-as continued by Mr McCombs. Mr Holland and Mr Sullivan. On the dlvi-iou being taken, the amend m* 4 " t was del rated : F,o- she amendment -if Annin-! ;i 7 Th,, Hill million-dug an .-ippropriation <d C 2.3 H.fiUU was then p:\sMl 1j.,-,,ii-,b tbe remaining stage. The House rose at 1.55 a.m.