THE WOOLLEN MILLS DEADLOCK

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2736, 3 April 1916, Page 9

THE WOOLLEN MILLS DEADLOCK

UNION-S REPLY TO THE

DIRECTORS

[The following statement by the .Woollen Mills Union, in . reply to tho statements made by the directors of the Petone 'Woollen Mills ■ Company, has been handed to ns for : pubhcation.] / ; The directors in their statement make use of the fact that they had paid 5 per cent, bonus to all of tho employees last year. And this, no doubt, is 6tated with the endeavour to induce the' public to believe they have been paying 9. 0 per cent, war bonus all along to the mill workers at Petono. This is not so. This is what las actually happened: The company did pay to the workers a 5 per cent, bonus last year, i.e., «}> to July 31, 1915, but this bonus was not paid until September, 1916, "and from this date (July 1, 1915) no bonus has been paid." But they do not toll of the workers who had left the mill prior to September, and who did Dot receive any bonus. Many had left between. July 31 and September, 1915. ' The following memo, was enclosed with each -worker's pay envelope:— - "Memo. —The amount herewith repre.sents a bonus of 5 per cent,, which has been voted to the company's employees on their wages and salaries as a tangible recognition of the energetio and loyal assistance called for when necessary during the financial year ending July 31 last. The employees, it is hoped, will gather by this action that the prosperity of the company is to the advantage of its employees, who can by effort, by checking waste, and by practising economy in both time and ma-, terial, assist greatly to their own benefit "For the Wellington Woollen Maimfactoring -Co., Ltd., "(Sgd.) A. E. DONNE, Seoretary. "September 7,-1916." Owing to the. ever-increasing cflst of living, the union decided that the directors should bo approached and? requested to grant a 10' per cont. increase "on the wages of time and pieceworkers during the currenoy of the war. The directors' reply to this request was a refusal to concede or even.consider tho matter, for their letter in reply to the union's request was the statement that "they could not concede tho request," and would "make no promise, either expressed or implied, as to their course at the end of the financial year." • Then they state that with this bonus (which the workers do not receive, "but if they had guaranteed to stay in'the employment of the company until aftor next September they may have got a bonus") taken into consideration, and excluding foremen, the earnings of men over 21 years of ago range from £2 10s. 4d. for unskilled workers to £4 3s. 3d. for skilled operatives, without overtime. This statement is so far, from fact that'we challenge the directors to produce the skilled operators, excluding foremen, to whom.they pay £4 3s. 3d. without overtime. There are employed afthc mills: 55 male workers, of whom three tunors (highest skilled operative) are receiving £3 per week; 2 warpers receiving £2 16s. per week; 2 spinners receiving '£2 15s. per week; 2 wool sorters receiving £2 14s. per week; quo woolly house-hand receiving £2145. per week'; one assistant carder receiving £2. per week; one man who has worked '29 years at the mill £2 12s. per week; 2 men who have worked 26 years m the mill receive £2 10s., and the other 41 employed receive £2 Bs. per week. And yet when we had the last conference with the employers, and offered not.to ask for the 10 per cent, increase foi'i-tnose"whose earnings were £3 or : more, Mr. Barber stated that they were so few in number that it would make no' appreciable difference in the wages sheet of the company, and they would not consider it. Yet they now quote high rates of wages' paid to some of the operators, but do not mention the number. - ■ ,'. , . ,„ . JVe'leave the public to judge for themselves .between our statement and that of the directors. " The directors state that because tne shareholders at the conclusion of the annual meeting held in September, 1915, unanimously decided that aa the directors' honorarium had not been increased for 13 years, and'as the company s business had increased so much that it called for more of the directors time and attention, they were voted the sum of '£500. There aro six directors, who in peace times were receiving between them for honorariums £650, and wjro granted another £500' (or nearly £100 each): or, in other words, the shareholders voted the directors a rise of nearly 100 per cent, increase in theii honorariums ("we must not say wages ), the same directors refused to grant a 10 per oent. increase to the men mentioned ahove, although some of them had been nearly a- lifetimo in the service of tho company ; and so a deadlock oontinues. ' ' ; IT . c The direotors state that the wages of women, and girls above the learners stage range from 235. 6d. to 535. /d. per week without overtime. But the ! 'taking of. an average" in this way, including the indifferent workers with others, is not the fairest way to the employer of showing the earnings. What do the directors' mean Do they mean that because. they say an indifferent •worker must not be included in showing the earnings of their workers that this prosperous industry of_ theirs mUBt not be asked to pay a living wage to their female employees that, will allow them to keep themselves in a, decent and respectable manner? The directors 20 on to say that some of the smarter fnd more diligent women should represent the true earning power of thowomen, and, with bonus but no overtime, they give the earnings of ten workers and quote them as from 06s. sd. to 375. 9d. k - , Now this company has 145 women ancl cirls in their employ, and they quote the wages of ten, and say that the wages of those ten workers should be taken as'the true earning power. A\hat about the other 135 women and girls that are employed? What wages do they earn? How can their earning power bo decided but hy striking a general-aver-age, and not iust qiioto some ten workers' earnings, and leave out for what period the wages quoted are taken tort Let us tako.it for twelve months, and ™t the average thereby, and it will be apparent to anyone that the wages quoted by the direotors will be very much reduced. And surely the directors will agree -with ue that these workers have to live the whole year? And when they state that 225. 7d.a week can be earned by the least efficient and youngest girl under 18 years of age, 'who works 45 hours, they state that which smaoks of the ridiculous for we know of quite a number of not girls ■ under 18 years of age, but women, who do not receive 225. 7d. a week for 48 hours. „ . , . The directors state that a great deal has been published about skilled workers receiving the award minimum, and state that any boy or girl of 14 years of age could do the work with great facility. . If this is so, what is wrong with the directors paying hoys and girls the wages received by these men ? We leave I tho public to judge of tho accuracy of this statement that the directors of a company-rwlio aro supposed to he, and no doubt are, business men—will pay men £2 Bs. a. week to do the work that hoys and girls of 14 years of age could do' better. If they have to employ men at £2 Bs. a week to do the work of 14-year-old boys and girls, and yet keep on showing record years at each annual meeting, they surely could have given the boys and girls 300 per cent, increase and not the 10 per cent, increase asked for by the union, and: then per-" U'aps the disability of obtaining young

workers would be immediately removed. ,Tlio directors then make this statement: "If these men, by steady work unbroken by weather conditions, are able by physical ability (which is more or less their only asset) to earn more at otber occupations, why do they remain at tho mills?" To tin's wo reply that we left the mill by giving tbe prescribed week's notico iu our award. Now, after we have ceased to remain at the mills, tho directors are insisting that we are out on strike, and quote sections of an Act for our benefit ot endeavour to prove the strike contention. Thoy also state that we have been deluded into this by malign advice. The directors state they have reason, to secretary (as they term oifr secretary) is responsible for it. Well, wo did invite tlie directors to address our Union; we regret that they refused; they then would have seen for themselves without having reason to believe whether we allow our so-called "professional unionist secretary" to run our business any more than the directors allow their secretary to run the Wellington Woollen Company's business. The directors stat« that the girls employed at the mills (excepting 1 beginners who are started at 10s. per week, and other learners) earn good wages, and in most cases their earnings depend on their own aptitude, and particularly their own.~.diligence. Is 12s. 6d. a week for a girl of .18 years of age good wages? Is «19s. a week for a girl of 19 years of age good wages,,when she has to pay 15s- a week for Board? Is 2Us. a week for young women over 20 years of age good wages, when thoy have to pay 14s, a week for board. 3s. 6d. for train and car fares? Is 14s. a week for a girl of 19 years of age working 48 hours good wages? Is 16s. a week for a girl of 21 years of age good wages, working 48 hours? And'the directors state when we seek work elsewhere we are offered loss money, and this at a time when labour is not too plentiful. In reply to this we have to Btate that with tbe exception of some of the clothing manufactories in which our girls have not been fortunate enough to obtain employment, notwithstanding the faqi, as the directors say, that labour is not too plentiful, all our girls ■who have obtaiuod employment have bettered themselves. _ The direotors aay: "To concede the 10 per cent, is unscientific, and. many of the workers do not need it." AVe reply that if the directors consider it more scientific to have their niiU closed than to concede the miserable pittance of 10 per cent, 'we ask for, then that is their business; but all of us want the 10 per cent., notwithstanding. The direotors say that in the face of the award and the present law will not allow their concern to be run at the diotation of the union which is on strike. We do not wish to dictate to the directors as to the running of their conceni, and it is the other nullowners, and not we, who will not allow the directors to run their concern.

1 Tlja directors state that whate/er concessions they may be justified .n making under special circumstances, they feel that they must, in defence of our whole industrial system, take a film stand, and refuse to grant concessions with the strike pistol at their heads. Evidently the directors' memory has failed them when they drafted this statement.. Surely they will remember that when the union last met m conference'with them, and the Hon. Mr. A. Myers, Minister of Munitions, presided, Mr. Barber stated that the best thing to do was to let them (meaning tho workers) have a'holiday'. This statement was made after the union recused, and rightly refused, to withdraw ■ their notices and arrange a Dominion conference, which would have 'meant that the union would have been responsible for extending a,dispute to parties not concerned therein. If tho granting of the request of the union for a 10 per cent, increase in -wages during the present war was not justified under the special circumstances; owing to the everincreasing cost of living, then we do not know what other special circumstances could arise that the directors would treat as a "special circumstance." ' ' ' The purchasing power of the sovereign has so decreased that the wages of £2 Bs. of 1914 have only to-day a purchasing power of £1 16s. Surely this is sot an adequate living wage for. either man or woman. The directors state that they voluntarily gave to the weavers in 1914 a 71 per cent, increase in excess of log rates, and also agreed to pay for six holidays per year. With Teg'ard to the statement that the weavers will be better off by 201 per cent., owing to the generosity of' the directors and manager, etc., than under the law governed by the award" this is what, happened: Tho weavers, after the award came into force in August, 1914, and in which the union we're unable to have any alteration made in . the then and still existing law, had a conference with the directors over an increase on the rate for weavers, and were offered two proposals: (1) 10 per cent, increase in log rates, or (2) 71 per cent, increase and payment for sis statutory holidays in the year. The weavers, after consulting the union, decided to accept the 74 per cent, increase and the payment for the six statutory holidays. This 71 per cent, increase meant the increase of lid. on the cut of 64 yards to the weaver, and for the 2-loom weaver lid. on each similar out, minus 33 1-3 per cent, reduction for weaving the two loomß. What happened? The manager took a shuttle away, and deducted Is. per out off the single loom weaver, and took a shuttle off the 2-loom weaver, or 9d. per cut; so it will be seen that the single-loom weaver was, by the action of the manager, Id. per cut worse off than before the 7i per cent, increase in the log rate was obtained, and the 2-loom weavers, after suffering firstly a 33.1-3 per cent, reduction,' because of their ability to weave two looms, had to undergo another reduction of Is. 6d. for shuttles taken off; so that they were Id. per cut worse off than before they received the concession of 7J per cent, increase in log rates. The deduction for the shuttles was always objected to by the union and tho weavers, hut no. satisfaction on the point was obtained from, the company, the original log/which is still in operation, and did not allow of the reduction of the Is. for shuttles, was superseded by the company with another explaining that there was a mistake in the original log supplied with regard to the payment of shuttles. The weavers, hndino- that the Is. and 9d. reduction for shuttles made a difference of ■ 2s. Cd. to 35., arid in some cases more than this per-week in their wages, interviewed the manager and asked him to put the shuttle on again, litis he agreed to do until the end of 1916. Now, the company claim that, by the "ia" ae f giving the concession of the shuttle (that he had taken away) back again to the weavers, meant a further increase of 8 per cent, to the weavers. The weavers get a" concession of 7} per cent., which is counteracted by the manager taking off the shuttle and deducting Is. and 3d. a cut, the malinger then gave back Hie concession that was taken awnv; now the directors claim that thev have Riven 71 ner cent, which was taken away, the shuttle is given back, and the company now claim that they have been generous and have given the weavers 151 l"]r cent, increase in log rates, whereas it. was only 71 per cent. And then the ■ directors say the weavers are principal agitators for the increase of 10 per cpnt. The directors had evidentlv not thought of the other agitator, the professional union secretary, at this part of their statement. ; The directors make a point of the ' tPft provided for overtime workers.' costi jas\ ifcem MM a year, and which was

not compulsory. The Factory Act, Section 24, Sub-section (6) states:

"(6) Notice shall, during some part of the working day, immediately preceding that on which the extension is intended to apply, be given to every woman or hoy to whom such, extension is intended to apply; or where such notice is impracticable the occupier shall, in addition to any payment for overtime, provide every such woman or hoy who resides at a further distance than one mile with a sufficient meal between the hour at which tho factory ordinarily closes and the hour at which the extension is to commence, or with an allowance of not less than one shilling, such allowance to be paid on the day on which such extension is to apply, and not later than the hour at which the factory ordinarily closes." It will be seen'by the foregoing clause of the Factory Act that it was compulsory to provide a meal 'or Is. to each worker if notice was not given to the worker who was required to work overtime one day before. As notice' was never given to any workers about, working overtime in accordance with the Factory Act. therefore the employer had to provide, a meal or pay Is. in lieu thereof, so that only tea, cakes, scones and butter were provided for this tea, such as can he purchased anywhere for 6d., the company, instead of paying tho £400, saved more than that amount hy getting out of paying the shilling or providing n meal that could be obtained for the shilling. It is surely a great anomaly that whilst our Empire is "in the throes of a Hreat'war the community should have te stand by and see the cost of the necessaries of life forced up and up without any other remedy but an increase in the wages. Shareholders who may have been touched by the slight increase in war taxation cannot get it back by overtime, hut they can, and what is more, they do, by a more effective way than overtime., viz., increased prices of tho commodities in which the company deals in, end in which they hanncn' to be shareholders. Directors and shareholders' in the romnativ in an industry that has made £26,705 1.55. 7d. net profit in a venr of war, and the naymont to shareholders of a further dividend for the second half of the year of 4$ per cent., with n bonus of 5 ner cent, on both issues of shares, absorbing £10,958, and cave to their employees a 5 per cent, bonus on the wncps earned for the vpaT. absorbing £2670. or making a total of £13.628 distributed from the not profits, leaving the companv a further sum of £13.077 to be hidden away in Teserve funds for future occasions. fhis comnany has protection by a tariff'duty of 20 per cent, to 25 ppr cent., and'enn«ot afford to pav a decent, respectable living wage to the males and females empl"ved by them. Signed on behalf of the union, A. ANDERSON, President. E. KENNEDY, Secretary. '