RAILWAY MEN’S WAGES.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3658, 21 December 1920, Page 4

RAILWAY MEN’S WAGES.

MR R. W. SMITH'S VIEWS. ——o During the debate in the recent session of Parliamenr on the Bill providing for various railway needs, Mr R. W. Smith (Waimarino) said; In "common with other members I welcome this bill. The hon. member for New Plymouth congratulated the Minister and the Department upon bringing down the bill, but I desire to congratulate the railway service upon having it brought down, for I regard the bill as a complete surren. der on the part of the Department to~ the employees. Month after month, year after year, the employees of the Railway Department fought for something like justice, and month after month and year after year they were side-tracked and defeated.

The Hon. Sir W. H. Herries: You are speaking of the loco, men? Mr R. W. Smith: I am speaking of the whole of the railway employees —the First Division, the members of the A.S.R.S. and members of the Engine Drivers, Firemen and Cleaners’ Association. Time after time with other members of this House, I have heard their representatives in these. buildings put their case to the Minister, and each tjme we members felt that something more ought to be done for them and on each, occaion half-promises were made, but practically nothing -eaffle ‘ of them. There can be no denying the fact that the policy of the head of the Department has been to side.track and defeat the wishes of the men and their representatives'. From the beginning of the .war, and right through it, there was no service in New Zealand that worked more loy. ally than the railway men. With a depleted service they carried out a greater amount of work than had been done i previously -with a full staff, and the country is deeply indebted to them. I am of course now referring only to those who remained behind and carried on the work during the war. And what reward did they receive. Each year the cost of living went up, but they still wont practically unrewarded. Hon. Sir W. H. Herries: They got three bonuses.

Mr E. W. Smith: Only at the point of the bayonet. Hon. Sir W. H. Henries: No. quite voluntarily Mr R. W. Smith: I am entitled to' my ouinion, and the hon. gentleman may have his. Hon. Sir W. H. Homes: I think I ought to know. Mr R. W. Smith: I, too. think the hon. gentleman ought to know and that is why I am telling him. There is no .question that the tactics of the Department drove jthfc [railway men to strike. No one will dispute that, because the men were systematically refused every reasonable request, and were subjected to a policy of pinpricking, and I do not think that any one will deny the fact that the fore, ing of the railway men to strike was the g; latest blunder ever made in NiZ. Here we have a loyal body of men —the biggest department of the public service. During the Avar they did ftlore than their share of work; and yet the department's tactics drove them to strike. Can anyone imagine a surer way of creating industrial unrest than the tactics adopted by the department. The head of the department knew that the salaries these men fece.ived were inadequate. If reasonable diplomacy had been used and the fair thing done there -would have been no strike but the department’s attitude forced them to take direct action and for the first time they felt ■ their own strength. I wish to say quite can. didly that I do not attribute any blame to the Minister, because I recognise that with the enormous amount of wbrk which devolves upon him was quite impossilb to have given y, the time to this department which it certainly deserved. It is much the most important depart. mentfof the Government-Service. The whole of the industries of the Dominion depend largely on the railways; that was proved during the railway "cut. ” "With all his other work it was, of course unreasonable to ex--7 9 pect that the Minister could have given to this department the time and attention due to it. Whilst with many others whose businesses depend very largely on the railways I should be very sorry to see the management of the railways leave the hands of the present Minister—l wish to be cprite frank about that; at the same time I would like it very much better if the right hon. gentleman had less other responsibilities so that he could give more time to the details of the service he has to administer, and I am confident if such were the case very much better results would accrue. I take it the measure we are now passing, which goes a long way towards doing the men justice, is the work of the present Minister. ’ They had to wait many years and it was ' not until after the present Minister toon office that they were granted

anything like tcqtfitable conditions,, They have a lot to thank®the present Minister for and I do not hesitate in saying so. Now, everybody in N.Z. knew the men in this service Avvere not being treated fairly and most people were aware that a strike waa imminent, but still the Railway Department appeared not to know. I am now going to put' on record ai telegram that I sent to the Right Hon. the Minister of Railways directly I saw, through the press, his-, reply to the railway men, when they asked for further consideration' of their claims. I am doing this tO‘ prove that others than those of the Railway Department know exactly what to expect—knew what was coming, and could tell the Railway Department what would certainly happen. This telegram was sent on the 26th April of this year and before the strike took place: “The Rt. Hoiu the Prime Minister, Minister o| Railways, Auckland. Extremely, dasap * painted upon hearing your decision re Railway Societies’ requests, which convinces me that .stress of work forced you into being guided in this very important matter by one whose past actions savour of his having completely lost touch with department ’s employees and also the general public. I would respectfully point out that conditions under which railway men work should not be decided' upon technicalities, but upon broad practical lines, and those in author!--ty should aim to meet in a fair and reasonable spirit the requests of the employees, and not as in the past set out to sidetrack and defeat them. There can be no question that should this result in forcing men who “have been loyal and patient to cease work they would have the public sympathy For instance, do you really think 13/ per day is now a fair wage for maiy ried men, and should they strike where do you propose getting men to replace them without ’paying higher wages, and should, you allow yourself to be forcccl into doing that wouldn’t you. become self convinced, and supply the professional agitator with a most telling weapon? I respectfully suggest that ,whilst there is yet time, that you set aside altogether all that has gone before and personally hear the, employees’ ease direct from their representatives. Am confident if this were done you would see they werefairly treated, then Should trouble come you would be justly entitled to the. wholehearted; assistance of the public. —Respectfully yours, R. W. Smith, Taihape. ’ ’ That telegram was sent on 26th April, and it was not until the 10th May that I re_. ceived the bon. gentleman’s 'reply. This is it: “I duly received your telegram of 26th ultimo.' As you - a-rc aware Railway 'difficulty has for time being been settled and tribunals are being set up to fully investigate claims of respective societies. — W. F. Massey. ’ ’ To.day we have this Bill before us which proves to the hilt every word I said in my telegram to the Minister. I am not go- . ing to take up any more of the time of the House on that question, except to say that-I sincerely hope the Department will benefit from past blunders and that when the railway employees—and may I include the public —ask for reasonable concessions qr alterations, those in authority will ’ not deem it their ' duty to .oppose anything and everything in that connection.