House of Assembly: Vol14 - WEDNESDAY 11 March 1914
from J. H. Bruwer and others, for remission of repatriation debts.
from G. W. Crawford, formerly Inspector, Native Affairs Department, for relief.
from T. Tannahill, Public Works Department, for leave to contribute arrears to Pension Fund.
moved, as an unopposed motion, that Order of the Day No. 11 for Wednesday, the 18th instant, Adjourned Debate on Motion for Second Reading, Contract Immigrants Bill, to be resumed, be discharged and set down for Wednesday, the 25th instant.
Agreed to.
brought up the first report of the Select Committee on Waste Lands. He moved that the report be printed and be set down for consideration on Thursday, 19th instant.
The motion was agreed to.
Confidential Report of Mr. Jordan, the Commissioner appointed by the Government to inquire into the circumstances attending the injuries caused to and the deaths of certain citizens of the Union in connection with the suppression by the military of the strike in Johannesburg on 4th and 5th July, 1913.
SECOND READING.
was cheered on rising to move the second reading of the Railways and Harbours Strike and Service Amendment Bill. Mr. Burton said that the measure was required as a modification of our existing law. Striking on the part of railway employees had been made by this Parliament a Statutory offence for which the law made no excuse. The offence carried with it certain penalties.
One of the penalties was that a striker was liable to be fined £50 or to be sentenced to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour. Then there were certain other penalties such as the loss of his pension rights, etc. It became necessary in dealing with the situation which had now been created to modify the existing law which was passed a few years ago with the full concurrence of the House. He thought the Bill might be described as a striker’s relief bill. (Hear, hear.) Unless they modified the provisions of the existing law in favour of the men who took part in the strike they would be deemed to have left the service. He had promised the House that in introducing the Bill he would take the opportunity of making a statement of the reasons which led to the strike in January. The principal cause it was said was the retrenchments which had begun to take place on the railway. That was the real pretext for the strike which was voiced. With regard to the retrenchments he found it very difficult to agree with the view placed before the House by some members, that the Railway Administration should not retrench men even if it did not require them —that they should recognise that men employed on a railway had a right to that work, and whatever were their needs they should not dispense with their services. It was quite true that one hon. member had said that sometimes it might be absolutely necessary to retrench men, but broadly speaking, he had said they should keep the men in the service, and not dispense with their services. That seemed to him to be a most dangerous doctrine, and one he could not associate himself with. It was bad enough in the Civil Service at large to say that they took the view that men could be retrenched whether their services were required in the interests of the country or not. But with the railways it was impossible to accept such a doctrine. The South Africa Act laid down that the railways and harbours must be run on business principles. What great engineering house in the world could conduct its business if that principle were adopted? It would be impossible. He entirely agreed that the services of the men should not be lightly dispensed with and that men should have full consideration. He would be able to show the House that far from acting in an arbitrary and harsh manner, the Administration had gone to the other extreme. Their first duty was to see that the railway was managed on the basis of the safety of the public and the efficiency of the service. If in the interests of the country it was found that individual interests must suffer, one could not let that stand in the way of the duty of the Administration. He hoped to be able to show that every effort had been made to consider the position of the railwaymen themselves. Of course, the claim was made and was still made that in matters of that sort the men or their representatives should have a voice in the decision of questions of that kind.
Of course, that was utterly impossible, because the men had got the opportunity of making their wishes felt by means of the ordinary channel, the ballot-box. If their claim—it was continually made—that the Labour Party had the country at their back were true, all they had to do was to show in a practical manner when the ballot box was in use that that was so. If they put their representatives into the House they would have the power to carry out their policy. Until they did that, to say that the men were entitled to take a part in the administration of the railways was impossible. Yet that claim was still made today. One had only to state it to show how entirely preposterous it was. He knew perfectly well what was going to happen when he presented his railway budget. He knew that there would be a great deal of criticism of the expenditure. It would be said that they had a Government which could not deal with the finances. (Hear, hear.) They would be told all those things, and they would be criticised hotly when this budget came up. How were they going to curtail expenditure? The wages bill was the heaviest expense. The other things were small compared with it. But let him endeavour to touch one man and reduce expenditure by dispensing with the services of one man, and then he was attacked from all parts of the country—not only from the cross-benches, but from all over the country. Where they had votes they had got influence and pressure, and they had all those circumstances to consider. There was one individual who was, unfortunately, lost sight of, and that was the humble taxpayer. (Hear, hear.) The taxpayer was not confined to hon. members on the cross-benches. The taxpayer included other sections of the population. He was completely forgotten, and the Railway Administration was placed in such a position that it was asked to perform an impossible task. They had hon. gentlemen from all parts of the country demanding to know why they did not reduce railway rates. They wanted to know what became of the Magna Charta of the Inland. How could he reduce railway rates when he was told he had to keep the establishment up to the top in respect of numbers and cost. It was an impossible task to do both those things. By the reduction of railway rates to the interior they had benefited all sections of the population—it benefited the working classes themselves. But they could not do those things. They could not carry out a policy of reducing railway rates unless they were prepared to do the courageous thing. The courageous thing was to face their position and say they would establish the railways on a proper and efficient basis. He just wanted to say one word with regard to the repeated attacks made from not only one portion of the House on the General Manager. The fact of the matter was that the General Manager was a strong man. He liked a strong man.
The man was courageously trying to do his duty. In the respect of attempting to put the railway service in a position of true and proper efficiency the Railway Manager was simply trying to do his duty in the teeth of most violent opposition throughout the country. When a public servant was trying to do what he conceived, and what he (the Minister) felt sure was his duty, it was most unfair to address these criticisms against his head, when he could not defend himself in that House. It had been charged that the Railway Administration had been opposed to the employment of white men—that the number had been reduced, and that there had been a devilish campaign in the direction of getting rid of existing servants merely in order to take them back at reduced rates. If that were true it would be a diabolical and devilish thing, and he denied it entirely and emphatically. They might have made mistakes, but the accusations made by a certain section of that House had not a scintilla of foundation. In 1909 the number of white men employed in the railway service was 24,800; in 1910, 27,900; in 1911, 28,600; in 1912, 31,000; and in 1913, the year when all this hubub occurred, there had been an increase of 1,000, bringing the total to 32,000. Far from having reduced the number, it had actually been increased. In 1913 what was called the wastage of the staff amounted to 3,700—3,700 men went off the books in 1913. Of that number resignations—voluntary resignations—accounted for 2,054. Deaths accounted for 153, dismissals for 1,104, and the retrenched men out of a total of 3,700 numbered 389. Of this 389, 122 were retired on the ground of having reached the pensionable age or on the ground of ill-health; 188 were temporary servants who were discharged on account of their work having finished, and 77 were retired on the ground of re-organisation. These figures dealt with the whole of the service.
Now, it had been said that the Administration had carried on this deep-laid plot in order to reduce the status of the men. Since Union took place, 1913 was the year that represented less retrenchment than any other year since Union. (Hear, hear.) In 1912, 411 were dismissed. Not a word was said about that. In 1911, 548 men were retrenched. They did not hear a word about that. But the year they did the least retrenchment for obvious purposes the men went out on strike. He would deal with the purely financial aspect and the efficiency of the service as a working whole. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Sir E. H Walton) remarked upon the fact that the finances were not exactly satisfactory, but he thought they would find that they were anything but satisfactory. In August they budgeted for a deficit of £35,613. There was a shortage in revenue compared with the estimate of £48,244, and there was an excess of working expenditure over the estimate of £107,114. There was an apparent deficit under all heads of £190,000, which would make an equivalent deficit for the twelve months of over £400,000. At the end of October the apparent deficit was £316,000, and at the end of December there was an apparent deficit of £338,000. Quite apart from the fact that the revenue was not coming in as they had anticipated, the serious feature of the financial position was the alarming increase of expenditure quite apart from the revenue. In one department alone—the Mechanical Department—there was an excess over the estimated expenditure of £135,000. He said that this was a very serious state of affairs, and this positron was brought to the notice of the department. It might be said that in the published returns they did not find this deficit, and that was so. But that was explained by the fact that he had not taken into account the savings under certain heads such as interest on superannuation, or relaying, and so on. Those sayings were effected, perhaps, by not using all the money that had been allowed. But they had to look at the working current expenditure, and this current working expenditure showed this large excess. The criticism was made that the revenue was not coming in very badly. But since last year there had been considerable increases granted to the men in respect of various concessions. There had been a large increase in the wages paid, and if they took all these concessions into account they would need an increase of approximately £200,000 a year, in order to meet that expenditure.
Is that since the estimates?
was understood to say that large and substantial concessions had been granted to the men since July. Continuing, the Minister was understood to say that to place the service on an efficient basis it was necessary to do away with men where departments were overloaded. In 1912, under the administration of Mr. Sauer, there was a Commission that dealt with the standard of the relative labour efficiency of the various shops. The majority report was to the effect that they had 1,787 men too many. Taking skilled men, it was reported they had 1,298 too many.
That was a year ago.
That was 1912.
What about your wastage? (Hear, hear.)
said that did not affect them. A very small proportion of wastage affected that particular question. The majority report stated that they had too many men, and he said that, quite apart from the question of the financial position, it was the duty of the Administration to deal with matters of that sort when there was a certain number of men in the service who were not required. That was a matter that must be dealt with. The Railway Board went into the whole question of its officers throughout the whole service. A certain number of men were dispensed with in 1913. That was the retrenchment which was the pretext for the strike in December. When the matter came up he gave the number of men in the workshops who had been given notice to quit as TO, and said that they were all temporary men. It was said that he had made a mistake, and he regretted to say that he had made a mistake. The number was not 70, but 52. He was informed that 70 men had been turned out. When the deputation from the Amalgamated Society visited him they pointed out that other men had been retrenched in other parts. He pointed out to them that no doubt that was so, but that retrenchment in departments like the stores he did not consider so serious a matter, because the stores had been in a process of reorganisation for some time past. It was easy to see, when dealing with the four administrations, there would be more men than they required with one. The number of stores men retrenched was 13 or 15, but he did not regard that as being retrenchment. Since then—it was very difficult when men were being continually retired to know exactly at a given moment the position—in addition to the stores men there had been 13 in the whole of the railway service in all other branches who had had notices to go. That was at the end of December. There were 52 in the mechanical workshops who had been retrenched, and everyone of the 52 was a man subject to 24 hours’ notice. In addition to those he had mentioned there had been other cases in the stores, transportation in other departments, making up a total in all of 70.
There were two boilermakers at Uitenhage.
said those men would come into the figures he had given. In the workshops only those 52 men had had their notices.
Let them be quite clear about this—that the quarrel had been about the retrenchment in the workshops. The other odds and ends did not count. He said again that when that strike was declared notice had been issued to 52 men in the workshops and 52 only. Let them Cake the numbers of men employed in the workshops at the time of Union and the number employed now. In 1909 the number was 4,654. That number had crept up, and in 1913 it was 5,673, an increase of over 1,000 men. The white men employed in the shops since Union had each year increased in number. It was said, why did they not deal with that matter by means of wastage? And how did it come about that they were continually employing men outside the railways while dismissing them in the railways? In 1913 something like 4,000 new men were employed on the railways, some temporarily and some on construction work. What the man on the street could not understand was why they had to get rid of men in the service while they were getting others from outside. Take the workshops, and they found that owing to the state of work they had a certain number of carpenters too many. It did not help them at all to say let those men take the place of boilermakers. The officials in charge of the shops knew more about their business than the general public. Then it was said that the workshops were full of work and yet men were being turned out. It was quite true they had plenty of work in certain directions, but in other directions there was no work. Of course, the matter did not rest so much on the personnel of the men, the cardinal factor was the accommodation they had for the machinery and the machinery at their disposal. If they had work which took up all the machinery it would be useless to take on an additional 1,000 men.
The Administration ought to have done a great deal more in the way of retrenchment than it had done. He felt that now to place the service on a true basis of efficiency we had more men than we required, but rather than err on the side of severity they had erred on the side of undue leniency and softness, and they had been influenced by the position of the men. Instructions had been given that the greatest care was to be taken to see that whatever was done in the way of retrenchment was carried out with the least possible amount of hardship to the men. Only unmarried men were to be taken, the men with the long service were to be left, and married men were to be left to the last. In every way possible they endeavoured to let the blow fall as lightly as possible.
They were told that they were placing order for rolling stock overseas, while at the same time they were retrenching. Since Union there had been an unprecedented increase of railway business which demanded a large increase of rolling stock at the earliest possible date. On an average it took from 18 to 20 months to have rolling stock made in our own shops, but by placing the orders overseas the stock could be obtained in from 9 to 12 months. The Administration encouraged the policy of getting the work done in its own shops, but when it was faced with such a position as it was placed in then it was thought right that a certain proportion of rolling stock should be obtained from overseas. Our workshops were not adequately fitted for the doing of this work, and locomotives and high capacity steam bogies could not be built here. The number of coaches for which orders were placed in our shops during the last three years exceeded the number obtained from overseas by 113. In the S.A. shops 292 coaches were built, whilst 179 were obtained from overseas. During the same period 2,738 wagons were obtained from overseas, and 1,979 were built here, but 1,800 of the former were these steam bogies. Probably more of the rolling stock would have been built here had it not been for the disturbances which took place in July, and which, in the opinion of the Administration rendered it difficult indeed to depend on carrying out the work here. Might he give the House a few more figures to show what had been done to encourage and develop the use of our own shops? Take coaches. From 1907 to 1909 there were built 115 coaches in the Union; in the years 1911-1913 282 coaches had been built in our shops. The corresponding figures for wagons were 222 and 747. In 1912 121 more wagons were built locally than during the whole of the three years prior to Union.
There was another element—that of cost. There was no doubt that at present it did cost us more to build these things in South Africa than to have them built overseas. He was perfectly prepared to accept the position in favour of the South African built article that it should be allowed a margin—(hear, hear)—by all manner of means. Personally he would be prepared to go to a matter of 7 per cent. or 10 per cent., but there was a limit beyond which one was not entitled to say one would build things here at a much larger cost. So long as there was an outcry in South Africa against the piece-work system so long we should not be able to compete with the oversea article. (Ministerial cheers.) Throughout the whole of the world the system of piece-work had produced the greatest efficiency, and if one did not use piece-work system here one could not produce an article at such a cost as to justify the Administration in extending the construction work here. Since Union nearly £300,000 had been authorised for the purchase of machinery, etc., and of this sum £200,000had been spent in the extension of workshops and machinery. It was the policy of the Administration to endeavour to extend these workshops and to try and build as many things as we could here. He would gladly see them all built here. But we must have our workshops placed in such a position that they could produce work at a reasonable cost, and in a reasonable time. Quite apart from any other consideration they had carried out in connection with the workshops they had erred so far on the side of a disinclination to get rid of men that efficiency had suffered.
Let him say another word or two in regard to another aspect of this matter— the complaint with regard to grievances. Not only was there a Grievance Commission appointed in 1912, but there was now sitting a Commission to go into all the outstanding grievances. That Commission had before it four out of the five demands made on him in connection with the strike. The fifth demand was that he should reinstate every man who had been retrenched, and should not retrench any more. To the 1912 Commission only 4 per cent, of the whole of the staff submitted grievances, and in the majority of cases the Commission found that the grievances had not been substantiated. That one would have peace, or an absence of grievances, in a service like ours, which numbered about 33,000 men, was hoping for Utopia. One quite understood that grievances might exist, and if we had none of them he would begin to feel that there was some reason for it, such as hopeless extravagance on the part of the management.
Let him give the figures with regard to what had been done for the interests of men since Union. Up to the end of June, 1913, the increments granted to the salaried staff amounted to £164,724, and to the daily-paid staff £516,000. That made a total of £681,030 fresh expenditure. Of the £516,000 the artisans got £140,000, but since June last the sum had been considerably augmented, as there had been no stoppage of increments. Making allowance for an additional £200,000. of which the daily-paid staff got £163,000, these increments brought the total provision since Union for increasing the pay of the men up to £900,000 per annum.
A larger staff.
No, it is not that at all; the hon. member does not understand. (Ministerial laughter.) Continuing, Mr. Burton said that in addition to that, as the result of the arrangement made in July last, an additional sum of £30,000 was involved for time allowances. Taking the concessions granted to the Cape Fixed Establishment and the extra pay to shunters and station foremen, the monetary improvement in the position of railwaymen amounted to close on one million sterling per annum.
Is that on the same number of staff?
There is about a thousand extra.
Continuing, Mr. Burton, was understood to say that the men had benefited by the most favourable state of affairs. The men since Union had the benefit of the most advantageous scale of pay in each Province. He would like to give the House the comparative figures of the scale of pay in this country as compared with other countries. In the case of artisans they got on an average 5s. 9d. per day in Great Britain, 12s. in Victoria, 11s. 9d. in Queensland, and 13s., plus local allowances, in South Africa. The latter was far and away the highest. He thought the figures showed that a better state of affairs prevailed here than in any other country. Then with regard to drivers. In Great Britain drivers got 7s. 11d. a day, in Victoria 14s. 6d. a day, in Queensland 14s. 6d. a day, and in South Africa 15s. a day, plus local allowances.
How many? Very few.
said that firemen in Great Britain drew 4s. 10d. a day, in Victoria 9s. 6d. a day, in Queensland 10s. a day, and in South Africa 9s. 6d. a day, plus local allowances. The local allowances that he referred to were the allowances paid to various servants of the Union who were working in certain portions of the country. In every one of the cases the scale of pay was decidedly more favourable in South Africa.
Are they too high?
said he would give the average earnings per man for the three months ended June, 1913, per month. In the Transvaal the highest paid to artisans was £34 12s. 6d., while the average was £24 18s. In the Free State £31 8s. was the highest, and the average £18 13s. In Natal the highest was £30 14s., and the average £17 8s. The highest paid to drivers in the Transvaal was £49 per month, and the average of £28 18s. In the same Province the highest pay to firemen was £26 4s., and the average £18 9s., while the highest pay to guards was £28 and the lowest £21. He would now deal with the centres where the strike was actually in full force, and he would quote figures to show the emoluments of the men who went out on strike. He was dealing now with the average amount earned by the men in October.
At Braamfontein the average amount earned was £28 18s. At Germiston the average was £26 7s. At Pretoria the average was £27 13s. At Witbank the average was £25 4s. At Waterval Boven the average was £30 13s. At Bloemfontein the average was £33 13s., and at Durban the average was £19 2s. Hon. members would see from these figures that the position of the railway servant in this country was much better than that of the railway servant in any other service in the world, and all this in spite of all this talk about this harsh, severe and unjust service. In February, after the strike, they had applications for employment on the railway to the extent of over 5,000. On February 2nd they had 3,500 verbal applications from outsiders for employment and 1,600 written applications. Continuing, the Minister went on to refer to the provisions in the Bill, and touched upon the cases of those men who had remained faithful to their duty. He thought the House would agree with him that it was right and appropriate that the country should mark in some way its recognition of the services of these loyal men. (Hear, hear.) Loyalty, of course, could not really be paid for, but he thought hon. members would agree with him that it would be well to mark the country’s appreciation of what they had done. He pointed out that it was specially stipulated that the Minister would decide who were the loyal men. It was impossible for them to say that every man who remained at work should receive this mark of appreciation, and he pointed out that some of the men who remained in did their level best to get their fellows to go out on strike, and when they failed did not go out themselves. He would point out that the highest number of men out at the worst time of the strike was 5,700. Some of these were out for only a day and some for longer periods. There had been cases when special services of an arduous and outstanding character had been rendered. He referred especially to the case of Engineer Elliot, who not only remained art his post, but undertook gladly to go to the most dangerous and difficult station, and by going there he lost his life. He went on to refer to the suggestions that were made for recognising the services of these men. There had been a suggestion that those who were not should be placed on the Fixed Establishment, and there was also the suggestion—and a very attractive suggestion—that these men should receive an extra year for pension purposes. Unfortunately, the latter was not practicable, and he pointed out that carrying that into effect would mean the House voting something like a quarter of a million of money. So they were forced to adopt the scheme that was included in the Bill giving the men leave on pay in varying degrees. Dealing with the men on strike, he said he did not think that any reasonable man could say the penalties, considering the law of the country, could be said to be harsh; on the contrary, if they erred, they erred on the side of leniency. Touching the rank and file, he said that however much they did not like to do this thing they must adopt some method of the kind else the loyal men would say, “What is the good of remaining loyal?” They had to punish in some way, and he pointed out the penalty for the second class would work out at about £5 per head, which was better than the fine of £50 or six months’ imprisonment which was laid down in the Act.
Another suggestion had been made to reduce the scale of pay for a period, but he had thought it better to deal with the matter in a short and sharp way. The men were divided into classes according to the time of their return to work. The number to be fined a day’s pay was 1,280. The second class, who were those who returned between the 16th and the 25rd, numbered 2,740, and they were to be fined a day and a half’s pay. They retained everything excepting that if they were in a special class they were removed from that special class. Apart from that they were exactly in the same position as they were before. Then they came to the rank and file, men who came back after the 23rd—those who remained out to the bitter end. Of these there were only 408, and it was proposed that they should be treated according to the terms of the Act of 1912, but even there there was a modification, because if they lost their past service they came back into their positions. Whereas the Act proposed that they should forfeit their contributions, provision was made that that part of the Act was not to be applied to them. They were not fined anything—they lost their pension rights. He would mention that it was not proposed to make any special punishments in the case of the men who got 5s. or less than 5s. per day. That would look like undue hardship. (Labour “Oh, oh!”) The last class was that of the men who took a prominent part in the strike. He had taken the view that no man who incited the men to strike was to be taken back into the service at all. (Hear, hear.) No man who took a prominent part, who made himself a ringleader, or who incited others was to be taken back at all. (Cheers.) That was a small class, and it was the only class to whom the terms of the Act of 1912 were to be applied. The number had not been ascertained exactly. He thought that was the proper view to take of the matter, and he hoped the House would support him. In order to ascertain the men who had to be dealt with he had appointed a committee of competent officers to go to the various centres and report after careful inquiry on the cases of the men who they thought should not be employed on those grounds. Broadly speaking—the inquiry was not yet completely finished—about 529 men came before the committee, men who had been rejected by the departmental officers as being ringleaders. Of that total, the rejection of about 250 had been confirmed by the committee. The case of every man who was finally rejected after that careful inquiry would come up before the Railway Board, who would finally deal with the matter. Of course, he must remind the House that in connection with the men to whom he was referring he was only carrying out the provisions of the law. There were other things provided for in the Act which he did not propose to touch on. He would explain that at a later stage.
There was, however, one matter of some interest, and that was the proposal to extend the scope of the Advising Committee to matters other than advice. Under the regulations there had been a committee appointed to advise the General Manager as to complaints made by railway servants. That committee, under the existing Act, consisted of a couple of officers and a representative of the men. In July, in consequence of a deputation which met the Government, representations were made that the representation on that committee should be equal on the side of the department and of the men, and that was agreed upon. That had been carried out, and it required to be confirmed by the House. It had been arranged that the committee should work sectionally. That was, that each section of the men elect its own representative and an officer from the section to which the complainant belonged should be called in. The number of cases heard by the committee had been 17, the number of appeals dismissed was 11, and the number in which the punishment provided had been modified was 4. The number of cases in which the appeal had been upheld was one. In the 17 cases there was only one in which the men differed and in that one he upheld the complainant. When it was said there was no ventilation for complaints he believed the men had been induced to believe it whether it was true or not. There had been produced in that country a regular atmosphere of grievances. It had come to the stage when the men considered it their duty to cook up differences. It was proposed to extend the scope of the committee from merely the disciplinary matters to general matters. The Bill asked for confirmation of that. The Bill had had the most careful consideration, and had been prepared on lines containing no element of vengeance. They would avoid giving the least appearance of anything in the nature of vengeance. The thing was open—the men had broken the law, they had laid themselves open to the operation of the law, they had understood that they had run a risk and had burned their boats. Essentially the nature of that measure—dealing with men who had broken the law—was that it was desirable to make an end of the matter; and he appealed that, while it demanded full discussion and inquiry, he hoped the discussion of the measure would not be unduly delayed and would not be allowed to occupy more time than necessary. That was in the interests of the men themselves. He did hope that hon. members would meet the Government and pass the Bill with whatever amendments were agreed to as soon as possible. (Cheers.)
said he was sorry the Minister had not devoted more time to the details of the Bill before the House instead of giving such a full statement with regard to the general railway position and matters which he understood would be fully considered by the House in Committee of Supply on the Estimates. It would he impossible to follow the array of figures, and he hoped that as they would be laid on the Table they would be carefully studied by the people of the country. Owing to the conditions laid down by Parliament in connection with the Bill introduced in 1912 and passed, it was necessary for the Government to introduce some measure to deal with the condition of affairs a couple of months ago. He thought his hon. friend had been unjust in his criticism of the remarks of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth. Nobody in this House had more unpleasant experience in the way of the necessity of making retrenchment on the railways than his hon. friend (Sir E. H. Walton) and he himself had during the depression in the Cape, when they occupied the respective positions of Treasurer and Commissioner of Railways. The Minister of Railways was wrong when he stated that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central, had said that under no circumstances should there be any retrenchment on the railway. What the hon. member for Port Elizabeth said was that with our huge railway service, when the men were turned out into the streets it was very difficult for them to find other employment. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir Thos. Smartt) did not say that under no circumstances should Government retrench superabundant men, but there rested on the Government a grave responsibility in weighing the position of the men.
With regard to the increase in the number of railway employees, he would like to know how much of it was due to the employment of men in the lower grades, who had taken positions formerly filled by natives or coloured workmen. If that were not the case the only conclusion one could come to was that the Railway Department in the time of prosperity was unnecessarily careless and added men who were not required. He would like some analysis of these figures. It was very difficult to know what the extra cost of building rolling stock was in this country in comparison with the cost of the imported stock. The Metropolitan Wagon Building Co. had been anxious to have an opening for the construction of railway stock here if it could obtain a guarantee that for a certain period its output would be purchased in preference to the Government importing rolling stock. Although he recognised there was great difficulty in constructing locomotives here, he believed if the shops were thoroughly equipped it would be possible to build a great deal more here than we were at present doing. That was the opinion arrived at some years ago by the officials of the C.G.R. The position was of such importance that it should be gone into in the most thorough and scientific manner.
The figures the Minister had given with regard to the increased scale of pay were rather staggering. The annual railway expenditure was something like seven and a half millions. Wages would not account for more than four millions, so that an increase of one million in wages would mean something like 26 per cent. The House ought to have a more detailed statement before it could accept a figure of that sort. He hoped that the Minister would do something for the family of the late Mr. Harry Elliott, who sacrificed his life at the call of duty.
Continuing, Sir Thomas Smartt said that he recognised as fully as the Minister of Railways did that after the trying times which the country had lately passed through it would be suicidal if the House was not prepared to make an example of a certain number of people who had led a misguided number of men into the unfortunate position they now found themselves in. To allow every ringleader to go back and take his place among those who had remained loyal would be a mistake. When he remembered the strike in this Peninsula, and thought of the misguided men who came out at Salt River he would like, while being prepared to deal with the ringleaders, to make a plea for a large number of these misguided people. They were told that under no conditions whatever would it be possible for them not to be successful; many of them were intimidated, and their wives and families had their lives made miserable. Certain hon. members of this House told these people that they had to come out, and that victory was in their hands. The Prime Minister said hear. hear. He (Sir Thomas Smartt) was very glad of that, because he would like to appeal to him to take these things into consideration, and while they were prepared to make an example of the ringleaders they should not do anything which would appear to be of a petty character, and some of the clauses of the Bill did seem to answer this description. After all they wanted a contented railway service. While they dealt with the ringleaders they should allow the rank and file to go free. (Opposition cheers.) Owing to the extraordinary state of affairs that existed in July last the men had the idea that everything was on their side, and there was a feeling that if they went on strike nothing serious would follow. But he was pleading only for the rank and file.
They were railway men in Government service.
I recognise that, but I also recognise that pressure was brought to bear on them. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Haggar), I think led the procession. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Madeley) encouraged these people to come out. So the pressure brought to bear on these people, in many cases by hon. members of this House, must also be taken into consideration, because, after all, many of these young men were told that it was their duty to strike, and that they were bound to be victorious; this must be recognised as an extenuation of their action. The hon. member for Roodepoort appears from his gesticulations to be a little uneasy, and now tries to dissociate himself—
I rise to a point of order.
No, no. I have often ruled that a personal explanation is not a point of order.
Then I must deny the statement.
You might be kind, sir, to the hon. member, because after all he finds himself in an extremely awkward position. He and some of his friends are accountable to the wives and families of these unfortunate people, many of whom have not the means of buying food.
It was men like the hon. member for Roodepoort and the hon. member for Springs, who now took their places as legislators, who encouraged these unfortunate people to break their obligations and to come out on strike.
That is untrue. (Cries of: Order.)
said that they told these men that by doing so they would not lose but would gain. He would have read one or two interesting statements that they had made, but he had unfortunately mislaid them.
I will lend them to you. (Laughter.)
went on to quote a speech made by the hon. member for Roodepoort outside the gates of the Works, when he said that for the sake of “their starving wives and children they should be true to their leaders.” The starving wives and children were those of the men who had gone out on strike. While prepared to support the Minister in dealing drastically with the ringleaders of the strike, he did not think they should touch the rank and file, pointing out that £5 meant a good deal to these men, especially after they had been out of employment for some time. The amount meant a good deal to these people and very little to the State. He thought that when they recognised the extraordinary circumstances under which the strike took place, they would be justified in not touching the rank and file. He did not think they need fear that if that were done it would be against good order and discipline. What did interfere with discipline was allowing the principal characters to come back. He did hope that the question of inquiring into grievances would be full considered. (Labour cheers).He had told the men of Salt River that if they came to that House with their grievances as a last resort they would be properly considered, and he also warned the men that they were sometimes misrepresented by a certain section in that House.
Nothing would create a better impression than to allow these men to bring forward their grievances without having black marks put against their names, because they had done so. Sometimes it was the man just above the man with a grievance who was the hardest taskmaster of all. He referred to the loyalty of the railwaymen, especially those of the Cape, and also touched upon the services rendered by the running staff, not only at the Cape, but other parts of the Union. Men who at the risk of their lives took trains out deserved the greatest consideration, and he did hope that the Minister would go into these special cases.
I have provided for that.
Have you sufficiently provided for those special cases? I say you do not provide for them.
was understood to say that provision had been made for promotion.
Will that apply to the majority of these people? Continuing, the speaker said that the Government had not yet defined the position and functions of the Railway Board, and if the men had known that there was a supreme authority to inquire into all cases of discontent and grievances, he thought that that would have gone a long way towards settling the minds of the men. They had pressed for this ever since the Union Parliament had come into being, and nothing had been done up to the present. If the men knew they could appeal to a court which would speak with authority then he believed that that would have a very good effect. He would move as an amendment that the order for the second reading be discharged and that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for consideration and report. He pointed out that he did not make this proposition in any sense of hostility, and remarked that under the transportation system the men had lost that feeling of comradeship which used to prevail under the old system. He had always found that when these men were dealt with sympathetically and in a humane fashion they were amenable to reason, and would take defeat when they otherwise would not do so. In the interests of the country, in the interests of the Service, and the Minister’s own interests, he appealed to him to accept the proposal. If that were done it would show the men that what was done was done in the interests of the Service, and not with the idea of getting at one set more than another. He wanted to make it clear again that he was not pleading for the ringleaders, who he believed should be made an example of, not from the point of view of spite, but as a matter of discipline. He moved the second reading be discharged and the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report.
said that the Hon. member for Fort Beaufort had emphasised many points, and he made it clear when he brought forward his amendment that he was not in any way hostile to the Government. Nothing like that had entered the head of the hon. member. If anybody in the country was running away with the idea that the hon. member was Leader of the Opposition, he had laid emphasis on the fact that he was not hostile to the Government in order to rid them of that idea. The hon. member also made a very interesting suggestion that certain members of that House should be punished by having salaries curtailed for their actions in connection with the recent trouble. If there was one hon. member in that House who should be punished on that account it should be the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, for many of the men at Salt River struck because they were indignant at the action of the Government in allowing the hon. member to address the men inside, and at the same time disallowing the hon. members on the cross-benches to do so. That was the last straw so far as they were concerned, and they forthwith came out on strike. Consequently the less the hon. member said about punishment the better. There was another point in the speech of the hon. member. He said the hon. members on the cross-benches had brought forward grievances for party purposes, and said that if grievances were brought forward in a proper way justice would be done. He (Mr. Boy-dell) was under that impression when he entered that House as a new member twelve months ago, but found that despite the fine speeches of the hon. members for Fort Beaufort, East London and Port Elizabeth, the grievances never got before or beyond the Select Committees of this House.
With regard to the speech of the hon. Minister, there was not one suggestion that in the smallest possible way the Government were responsible for the strike. According to the hon. Minister, only the men and certain of their leaders were responsible. He (Mr. Boydell) had always supported the railwaymen of South Africa in their efforts to get greater consideration from that House, and it might be supposed that he would be diffident in supporting a measure that granted certain rewards and concessions, but the circumstances in which those concessions were to be granted were extraordinary and abnormal; and the rewards would not be altogether appreciated by the railwaymen themselves. Those so called rewards would, if accepted by the railwaymen, be degrading to them and for the Government alike. Not many years ago, he was a docile, willing worker, but had he been a railway worker to-day and been asked to accept a reward in such circumstances he would have felt it an insult to his self-respect. That Bill was something worse than a Strike Relief Bill. It was a Bill that was going to sacrifice the interests of 5,700 men in order that a large number might have a temporary benefit. What was the object of the Bill. It was to benefit certain men who went on strike and to grant certain concessions to what the Minister was pleased to call loyal and faithful servants. He had no doubt brought it forward as a preventive measure, so that railwaymen would realise that if they embarked on a policy of that description again they would have to put up with certain penalties, or on the other hand there would be some reward given for their remaining loyal. But unless the Minister removed the causes of the discontent there would, before many years, be another upheaval in spite of legislation, or any Acts that may be passed. There was always the likelihood of some outbreak while the causes of the trouble remained. There were thousands in the country who would have been pleased to come out if the strike had been organised on a proper footing. The men had not sufficient confidence in their fellows carrying out the strike to a successful conclusion. Those were some of the loyal men whom the Minister proposed to reward in that particular Bill. There were many others who were loyal to their own self interests only by stopping in. They thought if they came out they would probably find themselves worse off at the end of the strike, and for that reason they remained in.
Let them take the men who came out on strike. They would always find a large body of men who had grievances and accumulated wrongs who were ready to strike. Then there were those who realised that the policy of the Government was to compel the men to work long hours for little pay, and that that was going to be detrimental to the working-classes of the future. In order to make things better if possible for their children, those men were prepared to make that sacrifice to try and put things right. A large number of others came out on strike in sympathy—men who did not want to come out, but they were so class-conscious that they came out in sympathy. Those were the men who ought to be rewarded, men who were prepared to sacrifice themselves for the bettering not only of themselves, but of their fellow-workers. The Prime Minister at one time was against the regrettable war they had in this country. He did his best to stop it, but when the call came what did he do? Although he was against it, he put on his bandolier and joined his race and fought for them and did his duty as a man. That same spirit existed among the railway workers. What had been the Prime Minister’s reward? He had been made Prime Minister of the Union and a general in the British Army. That was the punishment he got. But when his fellow-citizens took part in a movement they were victimised and the money they had earned was taken from them. The Minister of Railways and Harbours thought that under no circumstances was a body of railway workers entitled to strike. His argument was that he could impose any condition, but that under no circumstances must the men withdraw their labour. He had likened them to soldiers and sailors, but they had still to learn that soldiers and sailors could be turned on to the streets at 24 hours’ notice. The railway workers in South Africa were just as much taxpayers and colonists as the Minister. Those men were all engaged in productive and necessary work. A soldier was not. They were told those men had a duty to the State. The State also owed them a duty. The State consisted of 250,000 white adults and there were 32,000 railway workers who formed a considerable section of the State. It was no use hon. members blaming the Government and the Minister— they themselves had to shoulder the responsibility for their neglect in the past. The Minister had told him that 23,574 men were to be rewarded. The number of men on strike was 5,700. When they came to ask themselves what was the cause of the strike, they found that the primary cause was the accumulation of grievances which had not been redressed. The rates of pay and the hours of labour were worse to-day than they were three or four years ago. It was admitted in the Bill that the Government had no suitable machinery for dealing with the grievances. Why should it have required the condition of affairs they had had to get the Government to establish an Appeal Board. It was owing to there being no satisfactory machinery to deal with the grievances that was largely the cause of the trouble. The railwaymen gave an expression of opinion to the House when they gave 14,000 votes to Mr. Poutsma. The Government had forced piecework on the men, although they were making coaches only for their own use and were not competing with anybody. Hon. members must know the degradation and misery caused by piece-work in other countries. All the workers in the civilised world were against that system. It was the product of the competitive system which resulted in getting the largest output for the least possible outlay. They had had some members in the House supporting recognition—others were against it.
All the arguments that had been brought forward were pretty well answered by the arguments of the Economic Commission, which recommended that the various trade organisations should be recognised. For years the railwaymen had been trying to obtain an eight hours’ day, but they were still working 12 and 16 hours a day. If the hours had been reduced the necessity for retrenchment would have been obviated to a certain extent. The railway workers desired a minimum wage of 8s. a day. Six thousand of them were earning less than 5s. a day, and another 5,000 were not earning more than 8s. a day—men such as firemen, guards, ticket collectors, shunters, and wagon repairers. In fact, there were 11,000 railway workers in South Africa whose pay was not higher than 8s. a day. But their modest demands were ignored and flouted and refused by the Government. The men’s interests were sacrificed on the altar of economy. Again, the apprentices were treated much worse than they would be if the conditions laid down by the Grievances Commission were adopted. What was the use of Government appointing Commissions if it did not accept their recommendations? Government talked a lot about the South African youths, but took very little interest in their material welfare when it ignored the recommendations of its own Commissions. He (Mr. Boydell) was elected by the railwaymen in Natal to sit on the Commission in connection with the strike there, but he might just as well have been sent to Muizenberg fishing, for no notice was taken of the Commission’s recommendations. Then the men who gave evidence before the Commission were marked so that when a favourable opportunity occurred they were put on the streets as undesirable.
Continuing, Mr. Boydell said he would like to refer to the position of railway workers in January and February of last year—that was after the issue of the new regulations, when a strike was nearly precipitated. When he brought the matter before the House last session it was shelved by being referred to a Select Committee, of which he was a member. Not one grievance did the committee hear. Instead it heard a lot about stevedoring at Durban, but it did not go into the grievances of the men. The Minister might say that the men did not want the Select Committee to go into their grievances, and perhaps that was true, because the men had lost faith in such committees. The men endeavoured to get a Commission appointed, and although they were crying out for assistance neither the Government nor the House would render any assistance in any tangible way. Then came the events of July, and what was more natural than that the railwaymen should seize the opportunity of presenting their demands afresh to the Government? Those demands were very modest—that the recommendations of the Grievances Commission should be carried out. They asked that their society should be recognised, and that an eight hours’ day should be established together with a minimum wage of 8s. They wanted a consolidated pay in the Transvaal of 19s. a day and overtime, but the Government brought that down to 13s. a day and gave the men 4s. a day allowance to cover the extra cost of living, thus pulling down the maximum rate by 2s. a day. In the Orange Free State reductions had been made from 17s. to 15s. a day, and in Natal from 14s. to 13s. a day. (Labour cries of “Shame.”) Then the Minister, in his wild flight of eloquence, in which he allowed his imagination to run away with him, said the altered conditions had resulted in an improvement.
He appealed to the Minister not to rely so much on the documents that were handed to him by the officials. It was almost pathetic for him to see the Minister bring forward his case on second-hand evidence, supplied to him by the various heads of departments concerned. Continuing, he asked what the Government gave the men as the result of the July trouble? They granted them the recognition of their society under certain degrading and humiliating conditions, and another commission to go into the cases that had already been gone into by the previous commission. The men were opposed to the commission in the first instance, and were not going to have anything to do with it. He might tell the House that the railway servants were so sick of commissions that if one was mentioned to a railway servant he turned a pale green—the very word affected his stomach. Before the Commission had time to report—it was probably because the Administration was burning for revenge—they let it go forth to the world that they were going to retrench 1,000 railway servants. Chambers of Commerce and people who had no sympathy with them on those benches wanted to know the reason of this retrenchment in a time of prosperity. The agitation subsided when the Minister said that only 500 were going to be retrenched, and, perhaps, none at all. But the agitation started again when in December 70 men got notice. Taking into consideration the feeling of the men at the time, nothing was more calculated to provoke a strike than the threat of wholesale retrenchment. What were the reasons given for such retrenchment? They were financial reasons. The General Manager of Railways was reported to have said that owing to increased cost it was necessary to reduce working expenses. He would draw attention to the reasons for this shortfall of railway revenue. This was largely due to the wholesale reduction made in railway rates. The Minister had told them that £2,500,000 had been sacrificed in railway revenue in this way since Union, and for the nine months ended December 31 last the effect of the reduction in railway rates had meant a loss of revenue amounting to £1,000,000 sterling.
They had lost all this revenue owing to the wholesale reductions in railway rates, and the worker of the country, and the general public, had not benefited to any extent. There had been a reduction of £340,000 in the rates on coal, but instead of the price of coal going down it had gone up. The Minister said that because of the shortfall in revenue he must look round for a means of reducing expenditure, and that the policy of doing so was by retrenching. He had said that there was an increase of expenditure amounting to £400,000, and he admitted that there had been an increase in trade more than they had anticipated. When they got the General Manager’s report, that official pointed to the work that had been done to justify the increased expenditure. He said that during the nine months there had been 395 more miles of rails than previously. There had been an increase in train miles run of nearly one million and a half, an increase in engine miles of nearly a million and three-quarters, and an increase of the number of passengers carried of about three-quarters of a million. Of course this must necessitate extra expenditure, and if the Minister had been faced with an unprecedented increase in work, traffic and trade, he must only expect to have to meet an increased expenditure. He was only trying to side-track the real issue. There was plenty of work in the shops, and many of the men were working overtime. It was strange that the Minister should want to retrench while such was the ease. Moreover, they were extending the workshops, and while that was going on he came forward and said that retrenchment was necessary. Mr. Boydell proceeded to refer to the large amount of money sent out of this country to other parts of the world for rolling stock that could have been made in this country. The total number of coaches that had been built oversea since Union was 179, and the cost £544,000 the wagons numbered 2,758, and cost £989,000, the locomotives 242, and the cost £1,312,000, or a total of £2,846,000 had been sent out of the country for rolling stock, which could have been made by the workers of this country. The Minister had said that he would not mind having the work done in this country if the cost did not work out at more than 7 or 10 per cent. of the cost oversea, and he suggested that the cost of doing the work here was very much more than this figure. He did not give comparative costs, but just said that he would not go above that limit. He (the speaker), would give the House some official comparative costs. This had been supplied by the Natal Government in 1908, and dealt with all the stock in Natal. He suggested that the cost should even be less—though that return was some years old—for the reason that better machinery had been installed since then. He would draw attention to eight first-class lavatory coaches which were constructed oversea, and landed at Durban in 1903, at a cost of £4,064 per coach. The Natal Government’s workmen made exactly the same coaches, and put them on the road in 1905 at a cost of £3,284 per coach, showing a difference of something like £780 between the oversea and the South African cost. (Labour cheers.)
Mr. Boydell went on to quote further comparisons in which there had been a saving of £300 in connection with the locally made carriages. The number of passenger brake vans made in 1889 in Birmingham had cost £883, as compared with £765 for a similar number made in this country, a saving of £175. Then there was a saving on mail vans of. £672. The hon. Minister must remember that the private firms must have a profit, which did not necessarily apply here. There had been no piece-work comparatively speaking in Durban when those coaches were made.
What about relative life?
said he was glad the hon. member had called his attention to that, because he had with him the evidence of Mr. Wheatley, the Manager of Salt River Works, who was manager for many years in Durban. He had given evidence before an enquiry on behalf of the Government, and in answer to the question of what was the cost of a hundred trucks landed here as against Colonial goods Mr. Wheatley said they generally reckoned they could build stock here at the same cost as it would be from Home plus freight and insurance and re-erecting charges. In another part of his evidence Mr. Wheatley was asked what was the relative life of coaches which were locally made as compared with those made oversea, and he said the locally made article was always much superior. They had a longer life of from 10 to 15 per cent. That was on the authority of one of the Minister’s own leading officials, and there was the evidence of the Chief Accountant in Durban given for the purpose of showing that the local article cost 6 per cent more than oversea, but he had made most extravagant overhead charges, and had added in in every possible way he could to make the 6 per cent, extra. Proceeding, Mr. Boydell said that in spite of that they had got the Government retrenching the railway services in South Africa, because they found the revenue was going down, because they had made wholesale sacrifices with their friends on the back benches in regard to carriage of their commodities. Then on the other hand they found an increase in trade had been so great as to exceed all anticipation, and their expenses had been increased £500,000 more than they had bargained for But why should the railway servants be thrown on the streets because the Minister did not anticipate the increase? The hon. member for Fort Beaufort had talked about the railwaymen finding other work, but how could a coach-builder, for instance, in South Africa, get work in his own trade except under the Railway Department? Yet they had the Government throwing these men on the streets to force them to sell their labour at a lower rate: that was what it amounted to, for they had no alternative. Any body of men who had been treated as the railwaymen had been would have gone on strike. Was that industrial fight a fair fight? Martial Law was declared immediately, and men were driven back to work at the point of the bayonet. They had to admit themselves defeated for the Government would not allow them to hold their meetings, they confiscated their papers, and arrested their leaders and placed them in gaol without charge or trial. The only way to avoid defeat was to meet armed force by armed force. But these strikers were not armed; they had gone out on strike only as a protest. The Minister tried to make out that he was not vindictive, and now that he had got his heel on the neck of his victims he was going to be lenient, and would reward those who remained loyal by granting them four days’ extra leave every year. What a victory his had been. There was the question of the various degrees of criminality. Those who returned to work before the 16th were only to be fined one day’s pay for every day they struck; those who did not go back before the 25rd were more dangerous characters, and were to be fined l½ days’ pay; while those who did not go back until after the 23rd, more dangerous characters still, were to forfeit all their superannuation money and be started on again as new hands. There were 408 in that category, and most of them were amongst the Durban men. They had difficulties in communicating with other sections. On the 22nd the Durban men who were still on strike, determined not to go in until they were satisfied that the men in Pretoria, Bloemfontein, and other centres had done so. They were loyal to the men in the other centres.
At the time the men refused to believe the newspaper reports. On that same Friday the Secretary of the Federation went to Major Blew and asked him to let him use his telephone to try to communicate with Johannesburg and get the true state of affairs. He (the secretary) could not get through to Johannesburg in time, and therefore the men remained out that day. According to the “S.A. Railway Magazine,” a notice was issued from headquarters on the 22nd stating that unless the men returned the following day their services would be dispensed with. On the Saturday morning the men held a meeting and decided to go back, and they returned on the Monday. What happened to the men who did not go back? He had letters showing that their rates of pay were reduced. The superannuation money which had been worked for by the men, which had been deducted from their pay, was taken from them. He read a list of men whose pay had been reduced. With regard to the Committee of Inquiry, his information was that it was nothing but a farce, and he read a letter which showed that a man had been asked how long he had been in the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, how much he got while on strike, would he strike again, etc. Of course, said Mr. Boydell, there was no attack on Trade Unionism! He intended to propose an amendment to the Bill. The accumulated grievances and the refusal of the Government to grant redress made the strike possible. There had been plenty of work for the men in the country on the Minister’s own statement. The shops were full and they could not cope with the work. The Minister said the reason orders had been sent Home was that they wanted quick dispatch, but they need not have sent orders totalling £2,800,000. He moved the adjournment of the debate
The motion was agreed to and the debate was adjourned until to-morrow.
The House adjourned at