Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 6 July 1920, Page 2

Tuk position regarding tho jockeys’ dispute is now reaching tho comic opera stag©. The ballot taken lately disclosed that there was not any desire to strike, and it remains to be seen what the transport workers will do now regarding their decision to treat everything connected with racing “black. ’ By their action they are holding up

the transit of horses, riders, etc., to and from each Island and to outside places involving water transport. The jockeys made it plain from the position at Auckland that they were not . disposed to strike, nnd the tramwaymen there had their strike foi* • nothing. J The point at issue now is that the j racing authorities decline to rceogiise the Jockeys Association, which was j i formed as a union. Since that was made plain, several jockeys have seced|ed from the association. Later, the I \ owners refused to recognise the union, 1 ■ but a further conference is being ar- ! ranged. The whole matter will probably remain in abeyance tfll the Racing I Conference sits in about a week’s time I

at Wellington. The subject will be thrashed out there but it is doubtful if a formal union of jockeys will be ac- I ceptable to the racing authorities. The President has made it plain that there will not be any objection to an unregistered association of jockeys by and through which they icould have their grievances ventilated. Various demands are being made by the jockeys which in the main are or will be conceded already. As matters have worked so far, the jockeys have not been imposed upon. Clubs have made concessions all along the line, and the jockeys have had not only the friendly office of the Club on their behnlf, but also the watchful help of the Stipendiary Stewards who have taken the interests of the jockeys under their care. The matter is now in general suspense, but judging by the result of the recent ballot the outcome will in the end be satisfactory to the future interests of the sporf.

“Tuk Hobart building trades, having won, the 44-hour week, for which the same unions are fighting here, now find it a delusive victory,” says the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ of June 12. “In- | stead of the loss of the four hours’ work falling on the employer, they find that they have to pay for it themselvesHence they ask for a reversion to the old time-table. Tho argument that 44 hours’ work is equal to 48 hours’ work has gone all to pieces on the hard fact that there is not enough money at the end of the shorter week to pay the same wages that were earned in the longer week. The employer could only charge the difference to the public. But the public are not able to pay for the idle hours, as they have no one else to pass it on to, so a dead end is reached. As soon as the cost of building reaches a point at which the 'return for capital invested is inadequate money will .go elsewhere. And with the interest now offered for Government loans the house renter has to hid very high to tempt the capitalists to build The workers must therefore, • either build with their own money, pay a higher rent, or crowd up still closer in .the houses already built. The effect, ot the 44-hour week in Hobart was to force the last of these alternatives' upon them,so .that work in the building trade began to fall off, and, instead .if men getting 48 hours’ wages for the 44 hours’ work, some of them were getting no wages at all. As the result Of experience, therefore, they prefer th.' longer week with the surer money. It is a sensible decision nnd if the spirit dictating it was to govern Labor policy generally, there would be less to complain about in the Cost of Living.”