THE RAILWAYS.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 November 1920, Page 5

THE RAILWAYS.

PAY AND CONDITIONS. FURTHER BONUS ADVOCATED. vi By Telegraph.—Press Association, Wellington, Last Night. In the House of Representatives this afternoon, Mr. Massey moved that the House go into committee on the Government Railways Amendment Bill.

Mr. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said that the schedule which was compiled in April laet made no provision for the increase in the cost of living which had taken place since then. Ho congratulated the Government on the Bill. Jt was making secure the services of apprentices by improving the rate of remuneration. There was a dearth of apprentices as a result of the inducements given in other businesses,and only the fitting and carpentering department of the railway workshops had any apprentices. Repairs which should be peculiarly the work of the railway workshops were being done by Price Bros., owing to the fact that the Government could not get labor. This was to be attributed to the lowness of the State pay.

Mr. J. P. Luke (Wellington North) commented on the slight difference in the rates of pay between skilled and unskilled labor on the railways, which, he thought, was not calculated to encourage skilled men. He also thought that the schedule of pay should be more flexible, and that the Minister should have power to increase the pay as the cost of living rose. Mr. S. O. Smith (Taranaki) endorsed this view.

Mr. J. McCombs (Lyttelton) declared that whereas the railwaymen were receiving a 62 per cent, increase for the cost of living they should be getting a 73 per cent, increase.

Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) said an increase in wages was everlastingly chasing the increase in tne cost of living. He believed that it would have been better to have kept down the cost of living rather than to have increased wages. He asked the Premier to give the House an assurance that the railwaymen's superannuation would not be broken on account of the recent unfortuate strike,. Mr. 11. E. Holland {Buller) contended that railwaynien and other civil servants should be given full citizen rights and permitted to stand for Parliament without the necessity of resigning their positions. He also urged the abrogation of the Minister's right of veto over the decision of the Railway Appeal Board. ' "

Mr. W. A. Yeitch (Wanganui) said the Bill embodied improvements agreed upon by a conference of persons concerned. He pointed out, however, that the provision to meet the cost of living was based on figures prepared some time ago, and the cost had since further increased. Unless there was a fall in the cost of living, fresh applications for additions to pay were inevitable. The Prime Minister, replying, said the statement that apprentices'were not attracted even by increased pay was not correct; the department had'more applicants than it eon Id place. Everything possible was being done to piit all tho available rolling-stock in order for the busy season. The superannuation fund was to be strengtliened, and lie hoped fliat at an early date full housing provision would be made—a start had already been made—and that the rent in no case would exceed one day's pay. Regarding overtime, Air. Massey said that in most cases overtime was paid. for. So far as civil and political rights were concerned, he thought the men had pretty well full civil rights already. As for political rights that was more difficult, but lie proposed to move in committee that provision be made enabling railwavmen to obtain leave of absence to stand for Parliament, and, if elected, he would automatically cense to be a member of the service.

Replying to Mr. Mitchell, tlr. Massev said the men's positions would not bo affected by the recent strike. Tiie motion to go into committee was agreed to. In committee on the Railways Bill, the Premier moved to include the clause regarding the granting of leave to enable railwaymen to contest elections, hut the chairman ruled it inadmissible, as it should he included in the Legislative Act. Mr. Holland moved a new clause to abolish the Minister's right of veto over decisions of the Board of Appeal. The Hon. Sir William Hcrries, late Minister of Railways, said he had no objection to the abolition of the right of veto if the department was represented on the Board, but so long as it was not represented the Minister should have the right of veto. Mr. Massev said lie concurred in this view and attitude. Mr. Veiteh said it was straining the position to say that the department had no representation "on the Board, but he suggested a way out would be for the Minister to agree not to use his power of veto where the Hoard's decision was unanimous. This would not endanger the Minister's authority over the railwav employees. Mr. Holland's proposed now clause was rejected by 38 votes to 2(1. The Bill was reported without amendment. Later the Bill was read a third time and passed.