The Daily News. TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1919. THE MINING CONFERENCE.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 August 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1919. THE MINING CONFERENCE.

Public interest in the output of coal has been acutely aroused in consequence of the necessity for rationing, but more particularly by the restricted railway service which isb causing so much persona: inconvenience and considerable dislocation of industrial activities. For these and other cogent reasons the conference between representatives of the coal-owners and the Miners' Federation, which opened at "Wellington last week, is receiving much attention, especially in view of the threatened fight if the coal-owners refuse to give way. Less than a year ago, after considerable negotiation, an agreement was arrived at whereby the then existing bonuses were increased by ten per cent to wages men and seven and a half per cent to piece workers, on condition that the Federation would undertake that no further coal labor disputes would arise during the currency of the agreements, which it was intended should last for six months after the declaration of peace between Britain and Germany, provided that the period did not exceed three years from the date of the agreements. The employers contend that the war terminated only when the peace term's were actually accepted, and therefore that the Agreements are still in force, but the Federation insists that the signing of the armistice was the end of the war. That point still remains unsettled, as the Federation refused to accept a legal ruling thereon. The principal reason advanced by the miners in September last year foxincreased rates of pay was the higher cost of living, which was met by the augmentation of the bofiuses. The present demands are altogether different, and mainly concern the abolition of contracts and piece-work rates, reduction of working hours, increased holidays (which are to be paid for), not more than one shift to be worked in a day, and miners to receive £1 a day for seven hours work up to the end of 1920, and thereafter for six hours work. There is a long list of other stipulations by the miners that go to swell the demands, but it is in connection with the abolition of the contract system that the inain struggle must take place. According to the employers if the miners' demands were conceded it ■would mean not only a most serious reduction in output, but an enormous increase in the price of coal. It seems evident that the miners regard the abolition of the contract system as their most important demand, and as the Hon. E. "W. Alison, representing the employers, distinctly and, definitely stated that the owners would not discuss the abolition of the eontract system, no matter what figures the Miners' Federation produced, a deadlock was reached, as until the'principal demands of the Federation are withdrawn, the owners refuse to proceed further with the conference. In the statement made by Mr Alison, he demonstrated that the abolition of the contract system would, result in a reduction of not less than thirty per cent in the output, and that would mean a fall in coal production of 610,000 tons a year, while the increase in the cost of production from this cause alone would amount to six shillings ana eleven pence per ton at the colliery, equal to £703,475 a year, based on the 1918 output, w'liLe if the present shift rates of pay remain unaltered, but contracts and piece-work abolished and a seven hour bank to bank day adopted, the output would drop from 2,034,000 tons to 1,200,000 tons, a reduction of 834,000 tons, and a six hour day would involve a loss of 1,037,000 tons. In terms of money the seven hours day iccost by eleven shillings and one penny per ton, and the six hour day by seventeen shillings and three pence, equal to over a million and three quarters. If, however all the lowers'-Remands

were granted, the extra cost, 011 a seven- hours basis, Would be 14s lOd per ton, or £1,508,000, and on a six hours basis £2,212,000. These figures may well alarm the public, especially in view of the increase in population and greater demand for coal, the position being that the Dominion must chiefly rely on imported coal, for the figures quoted are based on the 1918 output, and on the assumption that the future output would be on the same ratio, but it is said to be beyond doubt that the output will not be maintained, so there would bo a further diminution of supplies and enhancement of cost. It is not, therefore, surprising that the Coal Mine Owners' Association. realising its duty to its members and to the State generally, definitely decided that whatever may be the consequencs, the principal demands cannot be acceded to or even discussed. With the miners' claims for better conditions inside and outside the mines the public will certainly agree, but it can readily be understood that the abolition of payment by results and the substitution of a wage of £1 per day for the miner will be giving a most unfair advantage to the workers, as at any lime they may decide to limit the output and the employers would be at the men's mercy. There is no 'question of speeding up the work of the miners by the cont'.'!K.f system, which- is the only satisfactory method, for it protects the employers and yields the workers very good money, as the wages sheets show. The outlook is anything but promising, and may well cause anxiety. The men have made such extravagant demands that no compromise seems possible, and as the secretary of the Miners' Union has flung down a challenge to the employers there is a prospect of a severe struggle. All the same, it is to be hoped that the Federation will resort to wiser counsels than by forcing a fight which will entail { unjustifiable hardship and suffering, in addition to disorganising all industries. Increased production is imperative on the part of the miners as well as in other directions. A coal strike on top of the present shortage would bring about a grave condition of things.