The Railway Conference.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4704, 24 July 1893, Page 2

The Railway Conference.

[Lytlelton Times."] It ih thoroughly in accordance with the spirit and tendency of the times to hold. that in a large State concern like our railways, employing several thousands of workers, there Bhould be introduced a system of insurance to provide agaiust sickness, disablement, old age and death. On that we may asaume there is no differenceof opinion whatever: the sole ground of divergence is as to the basis of the system and the details of method. Ought the management to be official or otherwise? Should the office Btaff be included in the railway insurance scheme, or in the Civil Service Bill ? Is it right that the State should subsidise the railway insurance fund ? Should the scheme be compulsory or voluntary? All these are questions upon which a good deal might be advanced -pro and con ; but the main proposition, that there Bhould be no division among railway men themselves, no ranging of union against non-union men on a subject that is outside uaionism altogether, should meet with the cordial approval of every sensible man. But that there is division is unfortunately only too evident, and the conference now sitting in Wellington is the visible sign and proof of that ! division. ; For this state of things the Railway Commissioners must be held primarily responsible. They have imitated, though not successfully, the tactics adopted by the Union Steamship Company after the maritime Btrike of three years ago. The Steamship Company formed a benefit society comprising all its employees, of whatever grade, and as a natural consequence the management of the Society's business fell into the hands of those who manage the Company's affairs. It was the old scheme of "Divide and conquer." Many of the Union men were enticed away from their allegiance, and the benefit j society grew in numbers and import- | anee. The <{ benefits," of course, are ! chiefly enjoyed by the Company, which ! is made to some extent independent . of industrial combination to regulate i wages and conditions of labour. In ' attempting to apply the same tactics • to the railway employees, the Com- | missioners found they had a more I solid phalanx of unionism opposed to them. There was also the Parliamentary factor to be reckoned with, ; for luckily there still remains a shred ;of " political control " of our railway j system. The Commissioners could do j nothing without Parliament, and so it j comes that the Government Railways | Insurance Bill has not yet passed the ; debating society stage, and is still ; resisted by a large body of the em- ! ployees, and by the Labour repre- ! sentatives in Parliament. | The Wellington conference has ' undoubtedly done something to 1 bring the legislative proposals more in line with the requirements of the ; railway employees as a whole. There ; is a small concession to the spirit of democratic control in the matter of framing by-laws ; but substantially the basis of the railway insurance scheme remains the same as that of the Union Steamship Company's Benefit Society. The working of the scheme is to be in the hands of " the railway authorities for the time being," and it is proposed to include all grades of the service under the operation of the Railway Employees Insurance Bill. When it is remembered that the House of Representatives has, by passing the Friendly Societies Act Amendment Act of Sir George Grey, expressed a determination to put a stop to insidious attacks on freedom of industrial combination such as that made by the Union Steamship Company, it is an irresistible inference that the Insurance Bill of the Railway Commissioners has not the slightest prospect of passing through the Lower House this session. Apart from this, there are other reasons why the Bill, even in the modified shape in which it has left the conference, will meet with determined opposition in Parliament. There is, for example, the proposal that the scheme should be subsidised by Parliament to the extent of at least 25 per cent of the contributions of employees. The representatives of the people will want to know why Government workers in steady and remunerative employment should have assistance which is not extended to the benefit schemes of any other class. Similar questions j are sure to be put with regard to the proposal that railway employees should receive sick allowance from the railway revenue and not from the benefit fund. We confess we do not know what effective reply could be made to these pertinent questions. The fact of English Railway Companies subsidising the Friendly Societies of their employees is no argument in favour of the same course being followed by a State concern, unless it can be shown that the Government employees are in the same position as others with regard to rate of wagea, certainty of employment, hours of labour, &c. At the same time, we repeat our conviction that the conference has done useful work in the direction of fully discussing the scheme of benefits, improving it, and aeserting the right of the employees to a voice in the management of the scheme. We are satisfied that nearly tbe whole of the railway employees would hail with pleasure a satisfactory law with regard to sick benefits, old age and life insurance ; but the way in which the Commissioners have set to work is chiefly valuable as an exemplification of how not to Bccure such a satisfactory '

law. By holding out the baits of sick allowauce from railway vote, low insurance premiums, Parliamentary subsidy and management at the expense of the country, they have succeed©'! iv alienating a large number of men from t,he path of selfreliance and wifely ; but it is just as well ihesH men should understand that these promises are impossible' o£ fulfilment, and that it. would be wiser to follow the old and ap. pruvwl lines [ n unity of spirit than to cherish illusive hopes of benevolent supervision by the Commissioners and paternal grants by Parliament.