FURNITURE WORKERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1590, 6 November 1912, Page 3

FURNITURE WORKERS.

Seen yesterday regarding tli.o dispute hetweeii the Auckland I'uriii.turo employers anil their employees, Mr.' i). Moriawy (secretary tc> tlie Wellington Furniture Workevg' Lnioa). gave same ' particulars concerning the Auckland and Wellington tfrade» Mr. Moriarty. said that trouble had tan 1 'Occasioned ov-fcr the Auckland • att'itrd> i Jvliioli was different" from that obtaining I m tho A\ eilington district* The award which is at present in force from the Bluff to. Wellington.' stipulates for awage of Is. '4il.,'psj- hour for a forty-four hour Week.' The Auckland nward'stipulates for <i forty-seven houi' \pesk at a minimum wage of Is. 3d..'per-hour 'for polishers and turners, and Is, 3.Jd. per hour for other workers. This award was granted upon the application of' about iprty workmen, and tii-ero were- now fully 30(1 Auckland men in the trado who were tti-Ssatigfied with it, and desired to bo treated ,in the same way as- tile rest of tho furniture' workers in tho Dominion. Moreover,.jJ/y.'-workiiig men- • longer hpiiisSiii wag£s thu Auckland'eto*. plover's Wvfere able to undersell rival furni-ture-makers-in the south. ■ .... "Mr. Moriarty said he pointed tliis out at the Cost <it Liviu'gComnjission, and had told theni plainly l that 'thu- average earn* rugs oi' furniture workers here, was £3 piif'wcek; <iml, further, that tue.'W.Hges in Auckland in the furnitme trade wore the cheapest in New Zealand, and that Auckland .cabinetmakers v.'ere' offering', furniture, tarriago and , freight' paid, cheaper, in Wellington than local, furniture could be bought in Wellington These statements were, brought under the notice o;' : Mr. ft,- C.Ciariici; (of Tonson,; Giirlick, Limited;' Auckland) by. a' "Star?' reporter on. July-5. Mr. Garlick explained that the rate of wages in-file furniture, trade' had' been practically tho same- throughout- New Zealand, until' within the last few months,. when,, under- new. agfeemohts'hl Dimedin, Chrls'tdhurch; and Wellington tho rate had been advanced Id, per' hour. • The-. • Auckland V agreement, however, was for a period of. three years,' and?would hold good'- for ..another eighteen months. Mr, Garlick said,.,that the chief reason,- Why they could ' 'compete- so .successfully with the Wellington cabinetmakers was'thtit kauri' is a go&d'deal cheaper iii Auckland than red pine is in Wellington, It. is ehigfly; kauri furniture thiif is Ijeirig piit.oii the Wellington market; He further explained that there w'as clear evidence that the Auckland factories were fitted up in a more -Up-to-date maayner than the southern factories were, For that season, also, orders from Wellington were frequently placed in. Auckland. As . a matter of fact, there was more competition in Wellington from Cliristohuroh than there was from .Auckland. It was purely business enterprise that enabled Auckland manufacturers to compete with Wellington manufacturers ill Wellington, and not the difference of one penny per hour in the rato of wages. Now, that shows, continued Mr. Moriarty, that they are in a better position to pay. the wage settled by the Wciling- . ton award than the Wellington employers are themselves,. Mr. Garliek admits that wad is cheaper in Auckland than here, and that they have better factories to work with. The Wellington employers are satisfied with the conditions of this award. When giving evidence at the Cost of living Commission, Mr. Edward Collie, a Wellington. furniture-maker, said.that furniture was cheaper than- it was ten years ago, although tho price of timber has gone- up considerably, in that .period— probably ten per cent.—and this lie considered to be due to better work from the tnea and better hiachinery.