TRAMWAYMEN'S WAGES

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 297, 4 September 1918, Page 6

TRAMWAYMEN'S WAGES

Sir,—The statement appearing in the Press made by His Worship the Mayor in respect to the tramwaymon's demand for a increase in the present rate of wages is as specious a bit of figuring as the Chief Magistrate of a, great city ever stooped to in an endeavour to block a body of efficient municipal workers from securing an honestly-earned increment in wages. Although appearing under his sauction, the'statement is so.misleading (to use tlio mildest term possible under the circumstances) that we hesitate to at-, tribute to His Worship the responsi-, bility of authorship. We are more than suspicious that the words put into tho Mayoral mouth were drafted by a leading official who was more concerned about discrediting the tramway workers in the eyes of their fellowcitizens than in making a fair and true analysis' of the position for the guidance of councillors, citizens and tramway employees alike. Someone has said that nothing is ko fallacious as official facts except official figures. The statement attributed'to the Mayor is a ' convincing illustration of the truth of this aphorism, as we shall clearly demonstrate herein. J The Mayor trusts: "That the tram-' waymen are not basing their claims for an increase in pay . ; . on the financial reenlts of the tramways as a business undertaking." • i

If tho Mayor has been keeping him- 1 self up to data in regards to the 'do* liverances of our Court of Arbitra- 1 tion, as he, as a private employer, and as the official head of an important local governing body, employing many hundred workers, may reasonably b'a expected to do, bo must know that the' financial earnings of a corporation or company, or whether its profits bo large or email or none at all, is no concern of the workers so far as regards the fixing of their rate of wages.. All ythe Court is prepared to consider at any time is: Does the cost of living warrant an increase in the curreni) rate of wages paid? This is none of the workers' doing, nor. are they specially anxious to see it perpetuated. It is the accepted, method of fixing wages under the present commercial system. If a city council or a private company finds that it works out to its disadvantage, then it must get out of the business, or adopt those methods so well known to employers of labour of meeting such additional expenditure. It does not affect the issue, therefore,' , that tho municipal tramways system is a "broken reed," though it is "scarcely decent of its chief executive officer to so describe it. We' would ask members of tho City Council to note that this elegant description of .tho fruit of their united labours is not ours, but that of their worthy and respected chief. *

Mayor Luke says that "the total capital expenditure of the whole undertaking is £806,365, and that the not profit, after certain deductions, is £12,606." Wo would ask His Worship was he mindful of what is expected of the Mayor of the Empire City when ho allowed such a misleading statement to go forth with his endorsement? Does Mr. Luke not knW that that £806,365 includes thocapital expenditure not only on tho tramways system, but also on the electric power and lighting plants, whereas the £12,606 of net profit shown is the net profit on the tramways alone? This profit of £12,606 the Mayor declares is equal to only 1J per cent, interest on the expenditure, and "could! not be called a.good business proposition in a business man's sense. Then were that "business man's sense" the merest nonsense, as we will make plain later. At this point Mayor Luke raises the. bogey of'"shortened sections", or "increased fares," in order to incite the cupidity of the general citizen against the "unreasonable" demands of the tramwaynien. Then he makes an excursion into economics in order to add to the hideousness of his pet "bogey" by declaring that "If either were douo it would' be hurtful to those people who have built homes in tho suburbs." Even if this were so, we do not think that the workers "who have built homes in the suburbs" are anxious to benefit by penalising of the tramwaymen. Bub it is not so. The 1 , workers "who have built homes in the suburbs" have already suffered in that the cheap tramway system enabled the land speculators to extort a much higher price for suburban sections than they could pos-' sibly have done had there been no such system. This is also a condemnation of the want of foresight on the part of our Municipal Council in the past.. Before putting in the tramway service the City Council ought to have bought tho available building land in. the districts the proposed lines were to tap. Much of that land is still held by speculators, and should fares be increased these people may not get just such big' prices as they have been getting for sections sold, but this cannot be called a "loss," as ono cannot lose what one never possessed.

liut let us look again at this alleged 1J per. cent, which His Worship the Mayor says "could not be'called a good business proposition in a business man's sense." Perhaps not. But supposing that business man had parted in business without a penny of capital— that he borrowed the money with which * he bought out his predecessor, and that he immediately proceeded to scrap the old piatit lie had bought and borrowed further moneys'to provide new and more up-to-date machinery, and then that ha found the earnings of the business, iu addition to paying him 1J- per cent, ou the total capital (which' wasn't his), also paid the .interest of from 4J to 6 per cent, on all his loans, provided a renewal fund, a sinking fund, a reserve fund, and permitted of an addition to capital out of profits of a further 1 per cent.—that is, that the earnings of- ■ the concern yielded him 1£ per cent. on the total original capital (borrowed), paid interest on all loans, provided a fund for the liquidation of said" loans, added to the capital value every year— what then? And remember that the business man had also paid highsalaried officials to manage the business for him I Would such a business "not be called a good business pioposition iu a business man's sense"? . Further, the expenditure grant of ; "£4117 wur pay allowances" to men on active service is apparently not given in good grace, and of the 147 members who have left these shores none would aocept the grant if ho had any idea that such acceptance would debar his fellow workmates from receiving just; remuneration for services rendered. In conclusion, wo are fully prepared ■ to allow the citizens of Wellington to judge as to which has the abler case of either of their servants, viz., tho city councillors of Wellington, of which His Worship is chief spokesman, or the members or the Tiamways Union.—l am, etc.. J. HUTCHISON, Secretary, Wellington Tramways Employees' Union. September 3, 1918.