Australian Waterfront Strike

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27501, 8 November 1954, Page 10

Australian Waterfront Strike

The present waterfront strike threatens to be as disastrous to the economy of Australia as the recent dock strike was to the British economy—and it is just as unnecessary and regrettable. The two strikes were, however, very different in origin. Whereas the British dockers objected, in effect, to working hours which they considered unreasonably long, the Australian waterside workers contend that there is not enough work—or enough pay—for those in the industry. But if they have a real grievance on this account they have gone in a very unreasonable way about . securing redress. The waterside workers’ unions enjoy in Australia a privilege shared by few unions anywhere—the sole right of recruiting labour for the employers. Normal industrial practice, of course, is the reverse: the employer first engages the worker, who then joins the union. The nature of the waterfront industry was considered by a special committee of inquiry under Sir Owen Dixon in 1942 to warrant the inversion' of the normal order; and this was accepted by the Federal Government and the shipowners. The agreement reached then provided for the Stevedoring Industry Board to determine the number of waterside workers needed in each port, and for the unions to maintain a sufficient membership to enable these quotas to be filled. But the quotas have not been kept up to strength; and the shipowners blame the recurring shortages of labour in the ports for the erratic handling of cargo, the slow turn-round of ships, and for a good part of the increased cost of freights. Whether the unions have deliberately kept the ports short of labour or whether the shortages are attributable to the rather ponderous method of recruiting through the central Waterside Workers' Federation are questions to be considered by the commission of inquiry which the Federal Government has wisely decided to art up.

It is significant, however, that Mr J. Healy, the secretary of the federation, while denying that the federation has ever refused to meet the Stevedoring Industry Board’s demand for labour, speaks of the federation being “about to admit” another 600 workers—presumably the number by which the union membership now falls short of the port quotas. Mr Healy’s claim that the federation’s members are averaging only 31 hours’ work in a seven-day week calls for investigation . and, if substantiated, for measures to put waterfront work on a more reasonable basis. But if there has not, in fact, been enough work for the present union members, it is strange to find that the federation is now “ about ” to increase the membership by 600 and stranger still that it has made no serious attempt to have the port quotas reduced.

The Federal Government obviously feels that the change in the method of recruiting labour is both necessary and urgent; but it has not been overbearing in its pursuit of reform. While giving the employers the right to nominate sufficient workers to fill the port quotas, it has also given the unions the right to object to the registration of any worker and to have the objection considered and ruled upon by the Stevedoring Industry Board. The Government has been strengthened in its determination upon reform by the widespread belief that the present system of recruitment confirms the present Communist hold upon the waterfront unions. Would-be watersiders, according to the “Sydney Morning Herald ”, have been carefully screened and admitted to membership only after Union officials have satisfied, themselves of the candidates’ militancy and left-wing outlook, while the influence of more responsible elements—of good union men and Labour Party supporters—has been carefully excluded. If true, this is a very unhealthy state of affairs which the Government would be justified in attacking vigorously. But an even better reason for the change exists; and it is one that is wholly to the advantage of the waterside workers. Waterfront work in Australia is still casual; and the union monopoly of-

labour is the only really formidable obstacle to employment being put at last upon a permanent ftxinng.