The Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1920. BRITISH MINING CRISIS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20055, 18 September 1920, Page 8

The Star. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1920. BRITISH MINING CRISIS

A more hopeful outlook is now apparent in the British mining dispute. The miners hare submitted new proposals, and there is a strong probability that a compromise agreement will be reached. The original demands wore a model of simplicity. The miners’ claim was for a flat rate advance of 2s per day for mine workers of eighteen years of age and upwards, with a graded advance for those below that! ago, and a reduction of 14s 2d per ton in the selling price of household, coal. The claim wap formulated 'with the object of absorbing the surplus accruing from the sale of coal (which is controlled by the Government). It was estimated that the surplus would be £06,000,000, of which the miners proposed to secure £30,000,000 for themselves, leaving the balance of £36,000,000 to bo returned to the public. The Government contended that Hie miners’ claim for an increase was not justified, and that whatever surplus profits were derived from the sale of coal during the year should go into the national exchequer. Sir Robert Horne, Minister of Labour, pointed l out that the wages of colliery workers had risen from 6s 6d per shift to 16s 6d per shift, or an increase of 154 per cent. The wages of the adult male workers had gone up from 7s Id per shift in June, 1914, to 18s 3d per shift in 1919—that increase representing 157 per cent. The increased wage percentage had more than met the percentage of increase in the cost of living. On the average the cost of the miners’ domestic supply of coal was 4s 5d per ton. The accuracy of the estimate that the Government would have £66,000,000 of profits to distribute lias been seriously challenged, though the estimate of £3,000,000 for the year is probably an absurdly conservative one. We suggested in a former comment on the situation that If the miners had to choose between securing an increased wage for themselves and securing a reduction in the price of household coal to the consumer they would not hesitate. The threat of the strike was launched with an announcement that the demands were inseparable, and it was even stated that the miners’ leader, Mr R. Smillie, would stand or fall on the acceptance or rejection of the reduction to the public. It has been proved to demonstration, however, that public sympathy with the miners’ demands was not to be purchased by the bribe of cheaper coal. The opposition to the strike came from all quarters, and many Labour leaders were most pronounced in r their hostility to it. The amended demands of the miners are more honest, because the assumption of hypocritical anxiety for cheap coal for the public has been dropped. They claim the immediate concession of the wages demand, and (ns a sop to the remnants of their consciences) that there ho no increase in tho price of homo consumed coal owing to the increase in wages. Mr Smillie confesses that he dare not ask the Miners’ Conference to postpone the strike unless he can first tell it that the wages demand has been granted. The. pretence that the miners were really concerned about tho retail price of coal to the consumers has been dropped with a vengeance. It must be admitted that r Smillie .has made some interesting and useful suggestions, which are worthy-of the serious consideration of the British Minister of Labour. The fact remains, however, that they have all been subordinated to .tho demand for more money for the miner. ‘ Vlr Smilhc may personally feel some regret at the latest development, but he cannot resist it.