The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 5. 1919. THE COAL DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 265, 5 August 1919, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, AUGUST 5. 1919. THE COAL DISPUTE

No one who Ijas followed the proceedings of the coal industry conference to its present stage _ can doubt that the decision to admit the Press, though it was at first opposed by the representatives of the Miners' Federation, was necessary and justified. As a result of the full publicity given to the_ discussions on successive days, it is now more than ever evident that the dispute is one in which the interests of the public generally are involved to a much greater extent than in the case of the average industrial dispute. With the conference still in progress and the possibility open that further evidence of material importance may yet he submitted, the time lias not arrived for attempting to form a judgment on the whole merits of the case, but one thing at least is very clearly established: the issue raised is much less between the mine owners and the mine workers than between the latter and the general public. Vindicated as they were by the Board of Trade in its recent report on the coal industry, the mine owners are in a very strong position. The report not only them on the charge of profiteering, but reached the general conclusion that "the rate of profit made in the production of coal, taking the industry as a whole, is unduly low." It is thus self-evident that any concession made by the mine owners to their employees, if it entails an increase in the cost of producing coal, must be passed oil to tlie_ consuming public in the'shape of increased prices. In the circumstanccs, it ftiust be conceded that in resisting the miners' demands the mine owners are not so much defending their own interests as those of the public. There perhaps never was a case-in which employers were less impelled by selfish interest to oppose the demands of a body of workers, and due weight ought to be given to this consideration in following the proceedings of the conference and its outcome.

. The fact that the public will have to bear the whole burden_ of any concession made to the miners on this occasion does not necessarily mean that the demands they have submitted are unjust or'ought to be refused a hearing. But it' certainly does mean that these demands ought 'to be considered and examined with ■an eye to the public interest as well as to the interest of the miners, and that no further concession should be, made to the coal workers until its effect upon the welfare and prosperity of their, fellow-citizens has been estimated as accurately as circumstances will permit, Like other workers, tho miners are entitled to satisfactory working conditions and a fair rate of pay. They are not entitled to enforce any demand they choose, without regard to hardships imposed as a direct result, upon the rest of the population. It is s.atis- v factory that their representatives at the conference have more or less definitely admitted this contention. On Saturday, Mr. Kobehts said

that He would go into the figures > for the mining cost of coal, and if it was found

that the increase of 14s. Gd. a ton would bo the result of tflie granting of the demands of the workers, then the miners of New Zealand would not ask for them for five seconds. The miners wanted to have not a shortage of coal, but a surplus of coal for everybody in New Zealand. and he wanted the public to understand that the miners of New Zea-

land could not be ilield responsible for

tho shortage of coal in future if the coal owners refused to discuss these demands. This sounds all right, but the immediate difficulty is to reconcile these professions ma'de on behalf of the Miners' Federation with the de-

mands it has submitted. According to the considered statement prepared by the employers the chief demands made by the Federation—the abolition of contracts and piecework, the reduction of working hours, increased holidays, and the elimination of the back shift (a second shift in the space of twentyfour hours)—would result in an enormous reduction in the output of coal and a very heavy increase in the price of the limited 'supplies still available. The employers estimate, for instance, that the substitution of day-wages for contract payment and piece-work rates per ton would in itself entail a reduction in annual output of 610,000 tons

(nearly a third of the quantity mined in 1918), and an increased cost of production at tho colliery of 6s. lid. per ton. To this it is added that the institution of a seven-hour bank-to-bank day under tho conditions proposed by- the miners would

reduce the annual output by 834,000 tons and increase the cost of nroduction by lis. Id. per ton. "The adoption of a six-hour day, according to the employers, would bring down the annual output by 1,037,000 tons (more than half the 1918 output), and an increase of 17s. 3d. per ton in the cost of production. Finally, the employers declare that if the whole of the miners' demands were agreed to, the cost of producing coal would be increased, on the basis of a seven-hour day, by 14s. 10d., and on the basis of a six-hour day by 21s. 9d. • It should be noted that these estimates relate to the cost of production, and that, if they are reasonably accurate, tho burden directly imposed on the consuming public would be oven greater than the figures indicate. It is difficult to set any limit to the burdens and hardships which, on the same assumption, would be indirectly imposed on the public. In many industries concessions to the workers engaged ancl an increased cost of production may closely approximate" to the total burden imposed as a result upon tho public. Tho position in the case of the coal industry ir, widely different. One result of such a reduction in output and movement in pricc as the imino owners predict in the event, of the miners obtaining what they demand would be to heavily intensify the hardships suffered by the general population in recent winters as a result of the scarcity and hig'i price of coal. But the total effect would be very much more serious, and undoubtedly would reach the proprtions of disaster: At tho present moment railway transport throughout the Dominion is crippled owing to a shortage of coal, most industries are more or less seriously ham-

pcred from tho same cause, and some aro brought to a standstill. A further heavy reduction in tho volume of coal supplies would go far to paralyse transport and would wreck and ruin industries all over the Dominion. At the same time where coal was still obtained, but at a considerably increased price, 'it would correspondingly raise costs of production in all manufacturing and other industries which depend upon it as a source of power and in other ways. What the total effect would be'in increasing the cost of living by leaps and bounds and in creating widespread unemployment it is difficult to imagine, but that it would to an overwhelming disaster is not in doubt. The untold havoc that would result from seriously reducing the supply of coal and increasing its price is a measure of the public's interest in the present coal dispute and of the responsibility that ought to bo recognised frankly and freely by the miners. It is manifest that in order to justify their demands the coal workers must first of all demonstrate clearly and unmistakably that the estimate arrived at by "he mine owners of the effect of conceding these demands is erroneous and mistaken. Refusing to do so, or failing '-to refute tho case made out by their, employers and still persisting in their demands, the miners would indicate that they intend to promote what they assume to be their own interests at the expense of national disaster. At the same time they arc, of course, called upon to show that they have serious grievances calling for redress. ' It can hardly bo said that up to the present they have seriously attempted to refute the contentions of their employers. In the main they liavo relied thus far upon general denials which are unconvincing in view of tho fact that their demands plainly make for a serious reduction in coal output and a correspondingly serious increase in price. Thero is'perhaps some weight in - their contention that particularly attractive conditions would attract large numbers of additional workers to the mines; but in this connection it should be noted that they are demanding that onlv one shift should work ir. a mine during the twentyfour hours—this although some mines are now working a double shift. Their .argument that although they wish to shorten the working day they are proposing a working week of five days instead of about four now worked is palpably ■ weak. It was pointed out in discussion yesterday that, takijig account of the holidays demanded, the averago working week would be brought clown to about four days and a half. In any case what reason is there to suppose that miners, who now work broken time (averaging about eight days per fortnight out of a maximum of eleven) would work full time if the demands were granted 1 It is only too plain that the minors have not yet approached a justification of their demands, and corresponding weight attaches to the urgent warning given by the employers. The conference seems to be approaching a. deadlock. Would not the best course be to turn to the Board of Trade, an impartial authority, ancl ask it, with such consultation by representatives of the contending parties as may seem desirable, to throw further light on the essential facts that bear upon the dispute and the vital public interests at stake?