STRIKE ECHOES.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 June 1924, Page 4

STRIKE ECHOES.

DISCUSSION IN HOUSE

RAISED BY MI! MILFORD

WELLINGTON. Juno £7. The first topic discussed in the ll,,use of Representatives was the recent railway strike. Till' Wilford, leader of the Opposition, moving an amendment which, though disapproving of the strike, expressed approval of the principle of the forty-four hour week which the railwnymeii had lost as a result cl their direct action. Though the debate on this issue was curtailed by the ruling that the amendment was out of order, there was a good deal said about interesting negotiations after tho strike between the railwa.vmen’s leaders and the Minister of Railways. Air Wilford, taking advantage of the motion to introduce the Imprest 'Supply Bill, quoted from the agreement made between tho Amalgamated Society and Government and the report of it wages hoard presided over by the late Mr G. lb Hulhick, under which railway workshop-, employees were granted a foiiy-four hour week. This was followed iu 1921 by the general application of this_ principle to the whole of the second division. * ats prevailed until tin* recent strike- after which the railwayman. with the exception of the locomotive branch were put bark to tile forty-eight hour week. He pointed out that before the board could report on what was a fair week’-; work, the Government had forced forty-eight hours on them, there no repot vet from this hoard. Me would admit that the men by striking broke their contract. Railwaymen’s work carried a great responsibility for property and life. "It was not reported whether the Government proposed to reduce hands. The railwaymen were being paid 7s 2d extra for the additional four hours worked weekly, which meant, an additional £270.999 per. annum. thus it could hardly he claimed by the Government that its action was dictated on the grounds of economy. The strike which took place was most iv"ri‘ttal)li\ 'Hu* 1-morn I l’aity did not stand for strikes or dins I action, hut they believed that the forte-four hour week was a lair winking'week. lie moved as an amendment to the motion to go into committee on the Bill the following. . Thai this House, while opposing direct action, and strikes, affirms the principle of the forty-four hour week in the railway service, in terms of the agreements of 1920 and 1921. AH XI ST EI! ’.S J FSTT FI ('A TI ON. The Hon .1. CL Coates. Minister of Railways followed the leader of the Opposition, lie conceded what had been said about the agreements, hut urged that the point at issue was whether it was wrong to ask the men to work forty-eight hours weekly. He had noted enreftili.V what the A.0.R.8. president had said on the matter, but tin- easiest thing to do was to leave it for the time being, because forty-eight hours was purely a catch word, lie hail held distinctly all along that the fnrt-v-eight hour week meant fortyeight hours’ work and then overt ini'*. The forty-four hour week sounded all right and might ho good ill certain industries. lad taking into consideration the circumstances of the Railway Department it was impossible to work a forty-four hour week with an eighthour day. Mr Wilford: 11 ran for four years. Mr Coates: And what insition dt I we get into? He added that lie was nut going into financial details, except to say that in a year when the country’s exports were a record and the least train miles were run Hie railways were only able to get £99.099 ahead and pay 3"! per cent, while everyone was asking for a reduction in Heights and fares "mil increased train mileage, li might, he said, he had management, or that the Minister was to blame, hut the plain filet was that overhead expenses were so heavy that they were nimble lu move. The tutting down of hours meant an increased stall of live thousand since 1921. though they reduced train mileage. 'I hat. had some hearing surely on the Department's ability to give people reductions in fares and freights Mr thirty- At the cxp'siic n! Hie men.

The .Minister: Not altogether. Jte-organi-aion is (|iiiio necessary. I admit that at once, ami it is being curried out, til'd reduction of grade', which means money. 1 here is no inilw.ty servite out-nle New Zealand wolfing forty-four hours. Mr M’Keen: They it-ed in. and a Tory Government put them on tortvoight hours when tin* .strikers went hack.

The Minister: And a Labour (Invoritmetit bad to do it too. I lie men made an oiuonditional Mirroinlcr. and in my in no they knew it. I hey were told they had to go hack to work before we would talk to them. Alter they went back to work and things cunlcd down we told them they were hack to I'nriyeighi hours. Their president said they ivere willing Lo :o-ce|it it. but they (lul not like it. Mr Fraser: Did ho agree to the eight-hour day 'l That is where you Went- back on them. Mr Coates: The t’orl.v-eiglil hour week is overtime alter I'orty-eiglu hours.

Tli" .Minister went on to sav that when the eight hours day i|il('stion crimped up and the Amalgamated Society's president said he thought the Inriy-eiglit hour wee!; meant that the forty-eight hour week meant that the light hour day would cm! nine lie (the Minister) painted out that sucii an interpretation was entirely wrong. NoIndy who thought the matter could put such a const met ini op.m it. Air Fraser: That is where you go back on the whole riling ; one ol the rottene-t. things. Mr fspe d.er: (Irder ! Air Coat:’;, added that he did not 'expect to please everyndy, lull he wic perfectly sntislied that, the aundgainuteil Society’s president and seci’eltir.v understood it thoroughly. ‘ l l do not say for a moment that they went hack and told the members of tlicit- association wbat was told them." SURI'LUS LABOUR.

Referring to the .surplus ol 2001) men made avttiltihle through the lengthened week Air (.’oaten said there was ebb and llow in the second di’.i - ion. and a - between loO!) and 2DT> men left during each year there was no intention to Mrike off 2011!) employees. They would leave and would he absorbed in other works conueett'd with capital expenditure. The alteration in hours meant that- basic rate men. formerly receiving £3 Ills Khl would get L’.| 7' ild. lie agreed it would cost something over £2()!),OT> to lootinite the forty-font’ hour week in the railway service lie emphasised the lad that the Department had to d i something to meet competition from rivers, sea and motors, and that unless something had been done it would have h-'en only a matter of live years before the railway service, instead of being lob;; fewer, would have ih‘np|>cd by ■j: Id;).

Mr Kdie: Von are making it worse for Lite highways. The .Minister replied that if certain places could be more easily and economically .'Orved by road transport than by the railway' than they should have tiie most Mutable form of transport. It cost C 350 per mile to maintain the railways while motor reads wero maintained by the ratepayers and taxpayers. The vehicles should rontri-

luite something towards this expense. They were told that the Department was being improved at the expense of the men. Labour members: That is so.

The .Minister retorted that an intrease of 7s ’2d for working forty-eight j hours and ail increase of il.3tif>,ot:o in j tlie actual cost of running the Hailj ways did not show it. Such a eondi- | tion. could not continue, otherwise it ! would hit the men themselves and i affect thousands of employees. OUT OF ORDER. Mr Massey declared that in all his lengthy parliamentary experience he

hod never before known mfitters that were being dealt with by a court being discussed in the House. He quoted an authority to show that such a discussion was a breach of the standing orders,

■Mr Milford: It is not a court of law. You might as well call a taxation commission with a Judge ns chairman of the Supreme OuiT: Mr Massey ridiculed this point, adding that the Arbitration Court with two additional representatives was at that moment arriving at a decision on the railwaymon's claims. Now Parliament was asked to practically direct the Judge and express an opinion wltieli would inlhicme the Court. The whole thing was utterly wrong. Mr Speaker: I understand the matter is under control of the president of the Arbitration Court. Air Massey: Yes. sir. There are two other men associated with him. 1 here is no getting aw:ly from the tact that it is the Arbitration Court. Mr Milford : No. certainly not.

The .Speaker, in ruling against the amendment, said the whole gist of the question was whether the subject mattor was before a court. He must tiphold ihe Prime Minister's contention that the matter was pending the adjudication of a Court ot I.aw. Mr Holland declared that the country I mild not afford to throw on the shoulders of any section of Ike pihlie service the burden of .carrying the whole tinam-ia 1 ro e !nv.isiliiiity ot tug Dcparimoi'.l. lie understood he could not deal with rniiivnymeii’s hours because it was sub puli'e. ,- l think most of ns ell these benches who are laymen had a fairly good idea that the amendment was out of older, but it was no part of our business to raise the point.” lie add'd amid laughter, lie proceeded to avoid a breach of the standing 01 tiers hv dealing geuoially with public servants’ salaries. Kevrybody knew, he declared, that the railwav si l ike arose out ol the Ptih.ie expenditure Adjustment Ait. and when the Labour Party moved to delay it six months only six voted for the motion, while 01 voted against. The leader of the Opposition had denounced the radwuym.cn for breaking their contrail, by striking, but so long as certain economic conditions prevailed which made lor discontent it would produce strikes. Just before Ike supper adjournment the {Speaker interrupted the debate to make an •.cxp’lmntion regarding bis ruling on Mr Millard's amendment, which he hail disallowed on the ground that he believed at the time railway matters wore sub indue .He had mmoc discovered that this we.s not so. 'I lie members of the Arbiti a lion' Court had been appointed to a special hoard to inquire into matters allowing the radwav service, and this board could only make recommendations It- was not a court of law. Haul lie 1 noun these facts lie would not have ruled a.s lie did.

Mr AYilford thanked the Speaker for his ruling and said he had no intention of taking advantage ol the mistake that- had been made. The Prime Minister accepted the Speaker’s ruling and the incident ended.