The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1920. THE WAGES OF MINERS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 107, 30 January 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1920. THE WAGES OF MINERS

The latest development in the coal industry dispute is an attempt by

Mil. Akbucicle, secretary

Miners' Federation, to show that miners are scandalously underpaid. Aiming at this result he has produced some extraordinary figures. Ho states that at the Dcnniston mine

Last quarter there were between. 50 und CO pairs of miners cavilled, and out of that number 3'J pairs were unable to .niaki: an average of l'2s. per day. Fifty 'per cent, of the remainder made from Its. to 15s. and tho balance over 15s.

, Mr/Arbuckle adds that the average earnings of the individual miner in the 32 pairs just mentioned wort out at lis. aid. per day. He asserts also that! in the case of one pair of miners who produced 176 tons of coal in a fortnight, or 16 tons per day, the indiviuual miner did not ma v ke 15s. per day. These figures could be analysed in detail only by those who are in possession of all relevant data. As they stand they suggest a poor rate of payment for a heavy output of coal by the miners concerned, and they are put forward avowedly as proof that the miners and the public are being exploited. Mr. Arbuskle's figures, however, are strangely at variance with the comprehensive evidence that is available in regard to miners' earnings. It is only ncces-! sary in this connection to refer to what has been said on the subject „by those associated with Mit.' An-! buckle in the conduct of the mining dispute. For, instance, when the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet were interviewed last year, in connection with the dispute, by an Alliance of Labour deputation, Mr. J. Roberts, secretary of that body, dealt' at length with the question of miners' earnings. He pointed oul' that at the Point Elizabeth and Liverpool mines—work?d by the State—miners earned on an average 225. 7d. per day, and that in other New Zealand mines the corresponding average was 2Us. 10.33 d. per day. This may stand with ample evidence, available from other sources as showing that the wages it is actually open to miners to earn are very much higher than those which, according to Mr. Arbuckle, represent the maximum obtainable by the Denniston workers to whom his statement applies. It b'lioiiUl be noted that the contract rates on which the average wages mentioned by Mr. Roberts were based have been increased by 25.V per cent, since the outbreak of war and that in August' last miners wore offered by their employers a further increase of 10 per cent, on pre-war contract rates. Assuming that the figures cited by Mr. Roberts in August last are correct it is therefore now open to miners to earn, on an average, approximately 2<ls. 4d. per day in the State mines and 225. Gd. in other New Zealand mines. That the wages actually being earned at present are on a much lower level is duo partly to the rejection of the employers' latest oiler and in a more important degree to the operation of the "go-slow" policy. It seems impossible that wages as far below the standard average in the coal mining industry as those mentioned by Mr. Arbuckle can be accounted for in any other way. If, however, it were really impossible for hewers in a given mine to earn higher rates than he mentions they could at once secure very much better wages by tnkiiur work >n other mines.

The evidently ill-supported lino of argument, adopted by tho secretary of the Miners' Federation supplies working miners with an additional reason for seriously considering the position they now occupy in relation to the public. There is no nucstion of asking miners to work for low wages. On the contrary they are freely offered high wages in return for a fair day's work. In a statement issued subsequent to the 'failure of last year's conference, tho coal owners made their position in this respect perfectly clear. In that statement they said, amongst other things:

Tho rates already paid are high, and the effect of the employers' offer will be to raise the earning power of mine employees consider. l 'bly above those of most oilier claws of workers.

If it could have been shown at any stage that these professions were insincere, or the statements inaccurate, public sympathy and support, of course, would have been given to the miners. The actual position disclosed, however, is that it is open to miners, without unduly exerting themselves, to earn higher wages than are paid as a rule for manual work. It seems likely, in view of nil the circumstances, that if\ tho miners and their employers conierred, without the intervention of outside Labour bodies, an agreement would soon be reached on Hues satisfactory to all parties and to the advantage of the general public.