Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Union Criticised

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 28. The Printers’ Union, clinging steadfastly to its craft traditions and ideology, had made the task of its advocate, Mr Skinner, more difficult, said the workers’ representative on the Arbitration Court, Mr A. B. Grant, in a dissenting opinion to the printing award decision.

He said the employers' determined insistence to get their own way had also prevented an agreement in conciliation along the lines which had been recommended by the Court in its earlier decision sending the parties back to concilation. As a result of this conflict, he thought the new award handed an unfair advantage to the “consumer” printer—that is, the firm which did its own printing work. Although the Court had previously placed the small offset and head-liner machines (used by consumer printers) in their proper classifications in the award, the new award reversed that decision, associating these machines with lower wage rates. “I do not agree,” Mr Grant •aid, “that innovations in industry which simplify and cheapen processes and increase production should be permitted to cheapen the price of the labour power of the worker. “In fact, the reverse should apply: if industry is to render a social and economic service, such innovations should add to the income of the worker and reduce the price to the consumer public. |i “The private printers do ■neither of these things, but ■seem to adopt in simple piety ■the philosophical approach of

the less the work is rewarded, the more it pleases God.’” In the same context, the Court should have granted the union claim that paste make-up should be in the award as compositors’ work. Now private printers and producers of “throw-away” newspapers had an advantage over reputable newspaper proprietors and master printers, said Mr Grant He also disagreed with the separation of display setting from straight setting in keyboard operators’ wage rates, because the operators possessed the same skill whichever work the employer put them on. He did agree, however, with the Court's introduction of long-service leave, and he .hoped that further improvements would be made later to this innovation.

OKI HAL CONVERSIONS Decimal currency will be introduced In New Zealand in July, 1967 Recommended conversion rates from Ss to £1 are as follows:

5S sec 13s SI 30 fis 60c Us SI 40 7s 70c 15s SI SO 8s 80c 16S SI M 9s Me 17s SI 70 10s 81 18s SI SO Us 81 10' 19S SI.00 12s 81.20 20s S3

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19660629.2.66

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31098, 29 June 1966, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
414

Union Criticised Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31098, 29 June 1966, Page 6

Union Criticised Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31098, 29 June 1966, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert