COAL MINES DEADLOCK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 269, 2 August 1918, Page 6

COAL MINES DEADLOCK

MINERS' REPLY TO OWNERS'

ASSOCIATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINERS' FEDERATION

THE QUESTION OF OUTPUT

. The Miners' Federation ycsterdnv i*I.T l" iemmt '" "U'ly to that ina.de ■ l '\ f! ,a jUl .n, L ' Owners' Association in con- : ection Willi the formers' demand for a 1 Iff" TV'—* ''',' WBBM - ''"he stalenieiit, winch is signed by Messrs W 10 , J arrv (.secretary) and ]}'. Sample , agent), js as follows:— . by the Coal Mine Owners' Association lo , thi! .slalc-ment of facts published by Hie ; Aimers l-cderatiou on July 0,, j t at , least indicates that die coal mine owners . can no longer ignore, public opinion or ;■ act as hitherto with complete disreard . o public welfare. II further shows that , Inu association realises thai there are ■ important matters lioUveii itself and the , federation which are worthy of lengthy , dismission, and by entering into public i controversy it places on record ils reco"- ■ nilioii of that fad. We wish at the out tet to remind the Coal Owners' Associa- : lion I hat no good purpose can be served . by digging inlo tho pros and cons of past: i industrial conflicts, especial!'- when the . questions have no direct or logical bear- ! ing on those at present in dispute. We , wish to assure the coal owners that it . does not follow that becauso we accepted the- accuracy of Iho Crown Prosecutor's ! (onlent.ions as to miners' wages we , considered all his assertions equally reliable. Both tho association and" the , federation agree to accept Ihe Crown Prosecutor's figures. ' ' Increased Cost of Living. ', Wo are now engaged in » dispute aris- . ing in and out of a demand put forward by the miners for a 20 per cent, increase , on their present earnings, to meet the increase in tho cost of living. To indulge in a discussion on questions involved in . past disputes is in no way going to help tho public to understand the righte and wrongs of the miners',, present demand. Hie one and only question in dispute is the demand foi: a 20 per cent, increase, on present earnings, which the coal owners have said is.jiot jusMable. In , the light of present day commercial transactions, the miners arc sellers of labour power, and have set cut to prove that their demand is not only justifiable but reasonable, by showing that tho increase in their yearly incomes is not commensurate with Ihe increased cost of the upkeep of their labour power. Wo expect tho coal owners to show, by the same process uf reasoning, that the miners' position as regards yearly income bus not. depreciated. The assumption of the coal owners, '"1 hat tlie demand for tbo increase has come from 'the federation officials and lmt from the miners," is quite unfounded, and proves nothing. We could , as easily and with more truth state tbat some individual coal owners prefer meeting Ihe Miners' Federation in preference to local unions. Indeed, sufficient evidence, of which the conl mine owners firo aware, can be brought lo prove that numerous disputes have been settled by the national officials of the Miners , Federation when the chances of local settlements were absolutely impossible. Tho* coal owners in their reply strongly stressed the settlement affected-between local unions, when the conference bet.vecn both nationnl organisations failed. They now use this incident as a reason for refusing to meet the Miners' Federation in the pirsenf dispute, but they are quite silent about the number of disputes settled by the miners' national officers when all local intervention failed. The coal owners complain bitterly about the Miters' Federation's policy in advising local unions not to accept tho employers' offer of the bonus and contract tnicldiii,'. The action of (lie Federation Conference, which was composed of dcliv gates from every local union, was quite in keeping with the policy of all national organisations. No national organisation in New Zealand adheres to this policy more rigidly than tho Coal Owners' Association. For instance, our local union officials, when in confeience with the local mine owners, have, been repeatedly told by the latter that they were quite willing to make certain concessions, but they were prevented by instructions from tho National Coal Owners' Association. The Coal Owners' Association cannot deny this fact. "Little Coterie in Wellington," Before proceeding to deal with that part of the- coal owners' statement which lias a direct bearing upon the question in dispute, we would again remind tlie coal owners that the public generally are not. interested in tlie rights and wrongs of past conflicts, to whicn'there are always two sides, and consequently room for two opinions. The coa! owners , reference to the. 'Miners' Federation as a "little coterie- meeting in Wellington," is as unworthy as it is absurd, seeing that the federation delegates are elected by the rank and file of the membership of all tho unions. We -might also deecribs (he Coal Owners' Association as a "little coterie meeting in Wellington," but nothing is proved by so doing. We submit that the tables prepared by the Coal Owners' Association have in no way affeclril (he case put forward by the Miners', Federation in justification of their demand for a 20 per cent, increase on present earnings. The lir.it table sets out: a schedule covering ten mines, showing the average daily wage earned by the minors and shiftmen when at work." On • analysing the figures, it will be seen that the fcvevage wage, estimated by the association, is the fame as that arrived at by the Miners' Fedcratiuu. The table, shows n slight difference in tho average wage of the, shiftmen, but agreement on this point would Viiso be arrived, at if the whole of the men working in and about the mines were included iu thii owners' table, as was (lone by the Miners' Federation. Wo feel confident that if this were done the shilling difference that the table now shows would disappear altogether. The coal owners quote a rather extraordinary case, in order to show tho earning possibilities of the miner. According to tho statement, it is alleged that a miner signed an affidavit to the effect: "That his weekly avcra-go earnings for ihe past two years was nine pounds fourteen shillings and sixpence '.CO Us, Gd.)." We would like to know the details of the circumstances in which this miner is supposed to have earned such exceptional wages. Even the alleged existence of an affidavit is not convincing. nre dealing with the average wages of thousands of men, not a single case of a questionable nature. Owners' Table Allegedly Misleading. Tho second table in the coal owners' statement, which covers only half of the coal mines of the Dominion, sols out the average number of shifts worked per week by the miners and shiftmen. In the first table the average wage earned by tho miners is shown separate from that of'the shiftmen, but in the table under review both sections are bunched together. We are at a loss to umlcrsland why the coal owners have adopted the latter method when showing tho average tiinn worVil. and the former in the table showing the average earned. The .second fable is incomplete, and -therefore misleading: (I) Because the table does not separate 'the shift-workers, and the miners; (!!) Iveniiso the table onlv f-overs half the coal mines, in New Xoalaml; (II) because the number of : days that cannot ho worked, as quoted ' bv us, is not dc-bi-ted. as tho coal owners state. In order that the public ' will uiiderMand how Hie federation ar- < rived ;if the number of days "that iiie 1 i"iner dors tint work, owing to reeoj- ' niseil holidays, and those I hat he cannot ' ivi-k HirniHi T»nsnn c over which he ' ! i< _!••< m«i,■<)[." we -vl out hereunto I I''" tnlWm': |nliV;_ i Average Time Worked and How It Is Arrived At. ! No. of days in year 3(55 J Days not , _ . worked. 1 Sundays 50 . Pay Saturdnys ",'„,', {g ! Christmas holidays 10 !

Easter holidays 2 King's Birthday J. La,bour Day 1 For cavelliiig '... 3 Accidents 12 days, for ' which tho miner receives 2 full days' pay, leaving ... fi Miscellaneous— Safety (gas, timber, pillars, etc.) 6 Falls from roof, breakdowns, etc 6 Shipping, transit of coal, etc (! Sickness 6 Days on. the average not , worked ■ 125 Average days worked 21(1 The. above table deals with the lime worked by the miner alone, and does " not include the shiftmen. The average days per year that I ,the shiftmen work ' is 255, as against 210 by the miner. The shift men loso six days under tho heading of safety, yas, timber, etc., falls '. from roof,'breakdowns, shipping, transit ' of coal, etc., against the miners' eigh- ( teen days. Tho shiftmen also work on ) the three days that come under the head- , ing of carolling, on which I he miner l does not work. ; How Time is Lost. I We want it clearly understood that [. the above table was compiled by tho j Miners' Federation for the purpose of ; showing the yearly income of the miners j and shiftmen. It will bo noted that . there are twelve days on the average in \ the year lost, by the miners through ae- . eidonts, and in order that wo would not . credit him with payment twice over for I six days out of tho twolve, which lie is I- paid lor under the Compensation Act, > wo only accredit him with the eix days . on which he was not paid. The same > thing applies to the shiftmen. If the t table is used for arriving at the aver- [ age number of days that eau be' worked 5 i>y the miner and the shiftmen in a > year, then in the totals given, as per . table, 2-10 and 255 respectively, tho six > days mentioned under the heading of ! accidents must be deducted. To return to the coal-owners' second table- which deals with the average time worked, it will be noted by a careful - study of tho same, that it means that I the mines are open oh 2CO daye in the ; year, «nd (hat tho miners work' 223 days. - They admit the claim of the .Miners' i Federation that time must be allowed i off for sickness, breakdowns, etc. (This ) i>: estimated by the federation at 80 'days t per year.) Therefore out of 260 days . the men, according to the owners, work, ; or lose unavoidably, 253 days in the year J thus leaving only seven days on which 1 the men could work but do not. Now, i seven days per year lost time is 2.7 per 1 cent., and not 15 per cent, as the own--f ers , table really shows. Wβ here a»ain ) wish to remind the public that the coals owners have based their estimate on one- - half of the coal mines in New Zealand, and-if the whole o-f the mines had been r taken into account, the 2.7 per cent, of ) lost time would have been still further i reduced. We submit that tho miners s of thw country work practically all the - days they can work, after making allowance for recognised holidays and days lost through stress oveiu.which tho miner has no control. We now come to the roal owners' third table, which purports to set forth the average wages now earned, and the probablo amount thnt could be earned by the miners, if they accented the coal owners' bonus. > We submit that this table and their analysis of it is worthless because the table on which it is based is fictitious. However, even though tho taWp sotting forth the "probable earnings" had not Ireen discredited, it is surely based upon a very illogical assumption. I.hat assumption is that because,the coal miners of this country produce' six tons of coal per day for 240 days in the year, they could produce six "tons for 300 days or 3G5 days in tho year. Surely such reasoning is not put forward seriously. The Coal Output. The next question arising in and out of th« coal owners' statement is that of the coal output. In reply, we will quote statements made by the Hon. W. J). S. AlacUonald, Minister of Mines, in December, 1917, and a subsequent statement recently made by the Mon A. M. Myors, Minister of Munitions. ±\lr. MacDonald's statement is contained iu -the following which appeared in the Auckland. "Star":—"The coal mines of New Zealand have closed down until January il, after a year of record output, consider|ing the difficulties due to the fact that 'coal mining, like every other industry is short handed. The Hon. W. D. S. Mac Donald, Minister of Mines, gave your correspondent some details of the 'way in which the coal output per man has steadily increased since the war began, vind ha also spoke of the need for further development of Hhe. country's coal resources, indicating tho North Island as the centre of the future extension. Though tho number of coal miners has considerably decreased since the war," eaid the Minister, "the output has been little affected, for the reason that there has been better organisation in the mines; pillar extraction has been moro worked, and the miners as a whole have worked, harder, and there has been less absenteeism in all tho mining districts. To show how well the men have worked, it; is worth mentioning that in 19H the Annual output per riian was G4fl tons. It went up to 711 tons in 1915, nnd 752 tons per man employed underground in 191 G. I am sure that this record has been maintained during this year about ending, and 1 look forward to equally good results in the new year, when both tho owners and miners will co-operate, closely to keep up the supply of this very necessary' commodity."" Hon, A. M. Myers's Statement. On July 27 last the Hon. A. M. Myers, Miniteder of: .Munitions, suW thai, the output of coal in New Zealand for 1917 was equivalent; to 2,068,119 tons, against 2,257,135 tons for 1916. Importations of coal ir. 1917 were 291,597 tijns, against 293,956 lons in 1916. The fact that tho importations for 1917 compare favourably with thoso of 1916 was clue to the substantial quantity of Admiralty steam conl made available at considerable expense. During January to June, 1918, the output wiis 952,118 'tons, against 851,150 tons in tho first half of 1917, the importations for the same periods being 131,601 and 229,311 respectively. "Krorn this it will de gathered," the Minister states, "(hat while the output this year compares favourably with that of last year, the importations look to have fallen oft considerably. This is duo to the fact that although every availablo ton of shipping is concentrated on the carriage of coal the amount of tonnage available is not sufficient to supplement the New Zealand output, and thus meet the total consumption. ■ The concentration of tonnage on conl from Newcastle at tho present time, which has been done of necessity, has resulted in a -/cry large accumulation in Australia of other cargo destined for New Zealand." Mr. Myers added that the impression that the Kailway Department's stocks were ■ substantial was erroneous. The remedy for the present state of affairs was to secure an increased output from New Zealand coal mines, thus making the Dominion selfsupporting in regard to this most essential commodity and releasing valuable tonnages now'concentrated in bringing supplies from abroad. Speeding Up. It will be seen by Mr. MacDohald's statement that the miners have not only worked harder, but Hint the Minister states, "there lias been less absenteeism," and that the average output of coal in lilll was litO tons per man, and had increased to 752 tons in 1916. Thus it will I>!> seen that tin , miner sped up to tho extent that his output of coal was 15 po: cent, higher in !916 than it was in Wit, or for every 11 tons he produced in HIM he now produces 13 tons. The miner produced 112 tons more coal in 1910 than he did in 1911. The above statement proves that while the miner received jGKi Bs. for his extra exertion, km! upon his average wage, the amount realised for the extra amount of enal produced according to letail prices was .£2BO. This might help to explain the reason why ihe coal owners are ko anxious about Iho introduction of I he 'tonus system, and I heir iVyr-rMi patriotic <hw; for a furl her spoodiujj-iip of Ihn minors. The statement made by tho Minister nf Mines becomes all the more interesting in conjunction with the recent statemeut made by the Minister of Munitions, who stated that during January to June, 1918, the outpui was 952.118 tone, against 854,150 tons in the first half of 1917, thus proving that the output of coal had increased by 97,908 tons in tho

period of six months. Mr. Myers's statement also shows :iiiit for the same, period tho importation of coal has decreased Oy i9u,701 tuns. In tho lace, of Hit- ulxivo stateinentii and the uii6leading nature of the coal owners' tables,, it is rather going over the oiuis to accuse tho coal ininer.-i, as the iual owners have done, of being responsible "for the residents of Wellington and other places being without tire iu tlu-ir homes in this wintry weather." If the coal owners did me fair thing. I hoy would certainly withdraw tho unwarranted allcgalio.l they, have luiido against 'tho coul miners of New Zealand. Tho coal owners' reply to tho federation iii connection with the, increased cost, of living, to the effect that the necessaries of hfo ran bo bought cheaper iu tho outlandish and isolated parts of New Zealand than they can in tho centred where they are unshipped, is, on the face of it, inaccurate. The index i'gures for: the three combined food groups, when, the March quarter, 19U, is compared, with the May quarter 1918, show the. increase for Greymouth to be i'l'i percent. We would suggest another closo perusal of tho index figures by the coal owners before they make further comments on this matter. Tho coal owners' reply 'to our table showing the increase in the price of coal, side by side wkh the increase in. the amount that the miner receives, is,, to say the least, very weak and feeble. They accuse us of being unfair in tho compilation of our table, and say that "they had no control over the retail prices of coal, and that every increase charged by the coal owners can be fully justified." This statement will need. very much more explanation before the. public, will be satisfied to accent the: increases as being justified. The Miners" federation showed iu their table the iuciease iu the price of coal, side by side, with the increase tho miner lias received. This proves that whoever got the advantage of the colossal increase in. tho price of coal, it was quite obvious.that the miner did not. Coal Owners' Profits. Tho coal owners' statement in reference to their profits has given little or no information apart from mentioning: confidential balance-sheets' prepared for the Government, which are supposed tw show the profits being mado by the coal owners. This gives very little, satisfaction to the public, especially when they know that 'there are balance-sheets and balance-sheets. However, in looking ever the Mines' Eeport of 1917, we discover that the net profit for the year of the Point Elizabeth Colliery was. JJIB.OW 15s. Id. This mine, from a paying point of view, is not as good as many of the mines in New Zealand, especially the bigger mines.. Consideration must also be given to the fact that ' this profit was made, according to the table set out by the Miners' Federation, at a selling price, which had increased nix shillings in six years, while the coal, from the privately-owned mines hud increased up to 28s. per ton. If this profit could be mado by the State at such a low selling price as compared to the enormous selling price of tho private owners, it looks as though there are very much tetter dividends paid than the coal owners would have the public believe. This mine is not so favourably situated ae many other of the big mines, from the point , of view of transit, and the expenditure for timber, etc. Consideration must also bs given to the. enormous amount of money paid by thn State in freights, as against the small, amount paid by some of the privatelyowned mints. When nil these disadvantages are weighed, and the fact that; in spite of this a net profit of JiW.difi 15s. Id. was mado in 1917 by the State, it at least furnishes some indication that the coal mines of this country are a very profitable business proposition. Wo again reiterate that the coal owners have iu no way shown that, the case as presented ]>y the Miners' Federation is wrong. Tho conl owners have endeavoured to show that there is no justifiable reason for an increase in the miners' present earnings. We submit that their reply, when closely analysed, has strengthened the Miners' Federai lion's contention that there are ample and strong reasons for a conference ou the matters in dispute.