Loss on the Waterfront.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16884, 12 July 1920, Page 6

Loss on the Waterfront.

In its report last- week to tho Ckristoliurch Chamber of Commerce, the committee set lip to investigate the causes of congestion at Lyttelton found, inter alia, that existing conditions were in part due to the fact that less ivork is done oii the wharves than formerly, ■ though, they did not believe that a deliberate "go-slow" policy is pursued.

Wo do not question their conclusions, but it would be of general interest if tho. committee, or some similar body, carricd investigation into t ; his matter I considerably further, and could show the extent of loss inflicted upon the community by the decreased efficiency of ■waterside labour. Such a report was lately presented to the 'W ellingt-on Central Progress League by Mr G. W. Mitchell, M.P., regarding the work done 011 the Wellington wharves. Mr Mitchell based his findings largely on ; figures obtained from the "Wellington Harbour Board, which employs onetliird of the labour on the waterfront. The rest of the watersiders belong, hovrever, to the same union, are governed by the same nolioy, and there is, as Mr Mitchell said, no reason to believe that loe Board's employees are less efficient than the others. The figures referred to show, in brief, that whereas in 1915 the quantity 01 goods bundled averaged 25101b per working hour, by last year the steady decrease in the amount of work done resulted in an average of only 13341b being handled in an Oiour — a reduction of Ocwt. The percentage of i less in efficiency in 191G, based on the standard of 1915, was 7 per cent., in 1917 8 per cent., in 1918 17 per cent., j and in 1919 27 per cent. During the same period the average wage per hour, j which in 1915 was Is G£d, rose steadily year by rear until by 1919 it stood at 2s Id—an advance in cost of 33 per cent., against a declinc in output of 27 per cent. The result of this system, as practised by t'he whole body of workers on the Wellington waterfront for the four years under review, is shown by Mr Mitchcll in some rather striking figures. "The total loss of offi"ciency," he said, "is 1,527,477 hours, "costing, at average rates of pay for ""the four-year period, £154,339." Mr Mitchcll continued: — When costing goods, all charges were added, and profits charged on Hhe cost of goods in store. The wholesalers' increase on'this sum, representing loss of efficiency; to cover expenses and profit, would be not less than 10 per cent., which equals £15,433. Thus the goods are passed on to the retailer with .in added inefficiency tax of £1(59,772. Tho average nercentage added by the retailer to cover cost, 'handling, and profit would be at least lo per cent., making a gross total of £19-5,237 added to the people's goods during the past four years, on account of loss in efficiency on the Wellington wharves alone, and no living soul receiving benefit. j\lr Mitchell expresses the personal opinion that this loss is not typical of other -waterfronts in the Dominion, but he gives no reason for tfhis belief. His confidence that this loss is nothing in comparison with profits made by merchants, land and house speculators, and others, does not, to his mind, justify "this wicked waste of time," • which 5 s "gross profiteering out of the poor "people." His conviction is that "go-slow" is the "deliberate policy of ."the men's leaders," but that it does not "express the wish or Intention of " the great bulk of the ■watersiders." If he is correct on this point, and we trust that Qie is, .the best thing that tho workers could do for themselves and the community would be to discharge their present leaders and choose in their place men -with some faint knowledge of economics, and with sufficient ability to recognise that there is a very close connexion between the rising cost of living and the falling rate of production.