Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 6656x9216 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

SAN ALLEBED -LOCK-OUTT.
To the Edito!.
- Sir,-In your issue of Saturday last under
the above heading appears the report of the
verdict ofM.r.. A. S. Roe,1 P.M., in the case
of th~ South-West District '(W.A) Clothing
Trades Industrial Union of Workers versus
Goode, Durrant and Co. for having caused
a lock-out, and which Mr. Roe designated,
according to your',report, "a most trivi'l
case." I think this verdict will go down
to posterity as one of the most brilliant
pieces of forensic logic extant. For in
stance, Mr. Roe says the'young women .in
que.tion'admit having stayed away because
they wanted .a higher wage, and he bases
his reason for. this upon' a clearly mistaken
answer made by a nervous young woman
when under i very severe and long cross.
examination. But let us examine the fact..
The. young women' were receiving 38s. per
week; and TI defyMr. Roe to prove from
the evidence or from any other source that
the trouble which arose had anything to do
with an increase above that amount. True,
when their wages were raised from 35s. to
38s. they had asked for and understood they
were to receive £2, and in conformity with
the true principles of exploitatioh they were
asked if they could increase their 'output of
work, which in this instance meant making
100 pairs of trousers. This they agreed
to endeavour to do, and' for a few
weeks succeeded; 'but when they were
paidw they received only 38.., and
not the £2 as. understood. , They
then only. made 96 pairs for the 38s., but
they soon found that they had been the vic
tims of a nice little bit of finessing; that
they had been given work at which it was
possible under great physical strain to make
the 96 pairs, but that later other work was
substituted at which it was an absolutely
physical impossibility to make that quan
tity. ' Each week the manager 'contended'
that they. were short in their work, 'and
eventually they were told that if they could
sos make the amount they would have to
go back to 35s. However, they continued
doing as many pairs as they were able, and
the climax was reached when the factory
manager told them that as they could not
make the required number of pairs they
could either take 35s. or leave. Mr. Justice
McMillan's definition of a lock-out, which
still holds good in law in this State, is "that
a lock-out is the converse of a strike. It is
the refusal of an employer to allow his
workmen to work unless they will accept his
rate of wages or the conditions, of labour
which he imposes." And I claim that,
judged by that definition, this trouble was
undoubtedly a lock-out. No employer can
threaten his employees with the sack if
they will not accept a reduction in wages.
The Arbitration Court is the tribunal to de
cide that matter. He is certainly acting
perfectly within his rights if he discharges
an' employee who is too slow or whose
quality of work is not suitable, but if he
attempts to reduce wages or alter conditions
of iork. and the employees object, and he
says,' "You can either- accept the reduction
or alteration or leave," it immediately be
cmomes a lock-out, and for Mr. Roe to say it
was more a strike than a lock-out is absurd.
Now let me deal with one or two other
aspects of this extraordinary verdict. When
trouble arose in October, 1911, at this same
factory, because of an attempt on the part
of the management to institute a piecework
system among the trousers makers for the
weekly wages system that was then in
force, the women and girls affected by it
refused to work under it, and sought the
'advice of the Trades Hall and union offi
cials. Mr. McCallum' and myself were the
ones mostly connected with the dispute, and,
after repeated unsuccessful attempts to get
an interview -with Mr. Wreford or Mr.
Pearce for the purpose of bringing about a
peaceful settlement of the trouble, Mr. Wre
ford agreed to meet the women and girls,
but refused to allow the presence of any
officials. , As we were out near the factory
in Palmerston-street when we received that
information, pnd no other place being
convenient, we went into a park close by
to discuss matters. Those interested decid
ed that not only would they refuse to go
back on a piecework system, but, as they
had been compelled to leave their work,
they would not return unless some of their
number who were receiving a most inade
quate wage (of which more later) received
a substantial increase, and also that a num
ber of the apprentices who were supposed
to receive 2s. 6d. rise each year (a num
ber of which had been due the previous July
and had not been paid) should be paid regu
larly until they received the maximum of
apprentices' wages, that is, when they start
to make the garments by themselves. In
conformity with this decision I wrote out
roughly on a piece of paper the various in
creases that had to be paid and also added
a footnote that the annual increases of 2s.
6d. had to be paid until the maximum was
reached. I omitted to state that the 2s.
6d. increases applied to apprentices as it
was entirely unnecessary, Mr. Wreford and
the management knowing full well that it
applied to the apprentices and could not
apply to anyone else. I explained the mat
ter to Mr. Roe, yet he still professes to be
lieve that the 2s. 6d. rises applied to the
journeywomen and gives the firm credit for
not only granting the automatic 2s. 6d. rises,
but of having gone beyond what the union
asked for, which is also an error, as the
union never asked for it, but the girls ask
ed that a promise of the management should
be carried out regularly and that they
should not be kept waiting for their in
creases months after they were due. Thie
next phase is as to whether these wome
were employed on a weekly or piecewor
system. Mr. Roe, by an extraordinary pro
cess of reasoning, says they were employed
on piecework. Let us see. I have asresad
pointed out how iwhIn" the firm 'attempted
to institute a piecework system the work.
ers refused it and left rather than subnmi
to it, but forsooth, because the firm insti
tutes the task system it must be piece
work. I pointed out to Mr. Roe how when
the trouble arose over the piecework one
of the girls who had not long been out of
her apprenticeship was making 70 pairs of
trousers for 14s.; another was making 50
pairs for 10s,; the highest paid at that time
were receiving 32s. for 80 pairs. Very much
like piecewori, is it not?-80 pairs for 32s.,
70 pairs for 14s. Piecework means an equal
amount of money for an equal amount of
work. According to Mr. Roe's idea of
piecework the girl who was making the 70
pairs for,14s. would have to make 140
pairs to qualify for 28s., and the girl who
was-making 50 pairs for 10s. would have to
make 150 pairs before shewould be entitled
to receive 30s. Or is it that Mr. Roe thinks
it was piecework for those who, having
practically reached the maximum of out
put, were rceivijng 32s. per week, and
who when the cost of living justified them
in asking for an increase of wages were ex
pected' by an almost superhuman effort to
increase their output of work; and, weekly
for- those who with the exuberance of
youth and the- conscious pride of beinglable
to do things, were almost able to attain
the maximum task, but whose age and years
lof experience at the trade were such that
it gave the employers a loop-hole for pay
ing them little more than an apprentice's
wage? Again, if it was piecework, why the
'necessity of the manager telling the work
ers that if they could not make a certain
amount they would have to accept 35s. or
leave? He would simply have paid them
for-the work performed and there would be
no more about it, but all would have been
paid the same rate per pair or dozen, not 50
pairs for lOs.
The Arbitration Court in almost every
case recently has given the workers in
creased wages because of the increased cost
of living. Mr. Roe would say if you get
any increase of wages you must do an in
creased amount of work. What a paradise
for the sweater if Mr. Roe were President
of the Arbitration Court! One other ques
tion. Mr. Roe says only two out of 200
left. I have, I think, proved they were put
off, but as to the numbers, there axe, I
believe, about 200 workers in the, factory,
that is, including white-workers and shirt
makers, who are on the top floor, and en
tirely separate from the tailoring depart
ment, but there are 15 trousers makers, and
Mr. Roe was informed to that effect, and all
the trouble in the factory has been because
of the treatment of the trousers makers.
And' is it not only natural that, profiting
by experience that they would not try ana
enforce a reduction on all the trousers
makers at once, but starting at the top, if
successful, it would be comparatively easy
with the lesser paid workers.-Yours, etc.,
Subiaco, Sept. 26. B. J. STUBBSB.
$