RETRENCHMENT BILL,

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16642, 26 January 1922, Page 7

RETRENCHMENT BILL,

PREMIER’S AMENDMENT. OPPOSITION SUSPICIOUS. (Special to the Star.”) WELLINGTON. .January 26. A considerable amount of suspicion was shown by Opposition members over a new clause introduced by the Premier in tho Retrenchment Bill early this morning. Air Massey explained that the reason behind the clause was that it would give the two societies of railwaymen the opportunity to negotiate for reduction so far as overtime and working hours were concerned, instead of taking reduced wages. The enginemen were willing, but it was optional. Air Veit-ch strongly opposed the clause, declaring it was so drafted that railwavmon could get nothing better from it than from the Bill, therefore there was nothing to be gained by them. He took the opportunity of urgin'* the Premier not to go below what he had said was his estimate of the basic wage, viz., £2lO. Mr Alaesoy remarked that he bod probably put the basic wage at £2lO. AVhat had happened in the railway service was that unskilled men' who, in 1914, got 9s a day, now got 15s. The first cut of £ls under this Bill would leave them £219 2s. The second cut, and nobody would.be better pleased than himself if they could stop at- it. would bring the -wage to £283 9a, while if a. third out took place of £7 16s 6d, they would still have £195 12s Gd or £54 more than in 1914. Labour members hotly condemned the clause, declaring that any organisation responsible for accepting it was betraying the eight-fiour day principle. Air AVilford drew attention to tho fact that the clause provided for no reference to anyone but the Minister of Finance. The amendment was floutimr the Act, and he would like to know what was at back of it. The Hon J>. H. Guthrie, ActingMinister of Railways, replied that it was simply opening the door to negotiation. Eventually the clause was adopted by 51 votes to 18.