REPLY TO “THE PRESS” ON LABOUR-ONLY CONTRACTS

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29748, 15 February 1962, Page 8

REPLY TO “THE PRESS” ON LABOUR-ONLY CONTRACTS

The introduction of labouronly contracts and piecework in the building industry would lead to a “return to sweated labour,” says the secretary of the Canterbury Carpenters’ Union (Mr F. L. Langley) in reply to a leading article in “The Press” yesterday about labour only contracts and the ban imposed by the union on a house it claims is being built in Christchurch under such a contract.

“Your editorial asks: ‘Does it (the union) believe that perhaps the arrangement (labour-only contract) is legal after all?’ The answer is, ‘no.’ You ask: ‘Why is the union not prosecuting the employer and workers in the court?’ ” Mr Langley says.

“The award reads: ‘Piecework is prohibited. No work shall be sublet labour-only. It shall be a breach of this award for any employer to sublet any work within the scope of this award on a labour-only basis, and any worker taking work on a labour-only basis shall be guilty of a breach of this award.’

"The success in proving a breach of this clause is dependent upon proving master and servant relationship,” Mr Langley says. “No better example of exposing this difficulty can be cited than the house in dispute in Memorial avenue. The men employed informed union representatives that they are employed on labour-only contract for Beasley. South Island. Ltd. “The South Island manager of this firm waited on me and said that the men were contractors in their own right. He was asked to put this in writing with a guarantee that the firm would refrain from introducing labour-only contracts here. He handed me a letter to say that the men were now contracting to complete the house for the Independent Grocers’ Alliance, Ltd .” Mr Langley said.

“This information proved to be false. The general manager of I.G.A. in Christchurch knew nothing about this proposed new arrangement.

“Later, over the telephone, the South Island manager of the Beasley firm was informed of my disbelief of this proposed new arrangement and he immediately said that the men were now on wages.” Mr Langley said. Housing Costs

"The truth, of course, is that the men are employed on labour - only contract which is illegal, and, by subtle means, they are able to defy the intention of the award provision which is designed to protect labour conditions. As an afterthought, they can be contractors or wage workers. “Your editorial . says the abolition of piece work (‘a respected practice in many New Zealand industries’) from the building trade was a retrograde step and has contributed to the rise in the cost of building, particularly housing. If this statement was true, why is it that housing costs for the same type of house in Christchurch are so much cheaper than houses in other centres of New Zealand, where practices you seek to foster here prevail? “It is recognised that labour costs on housing and other building are cheaper here than in any other main centre in New Zealand although rates in excess of the award prevail. The main reason for this is that we have a larger complement of skilled building tradesmen,” said Mr Langley. “If we take your suggestion of abrogating award conditions in order to provide cheaper homes to its final conclusion—that is, all commodities should be provided cheaply at the expense of sweated labour—would you agree that the hours of work be unlimited; that holiday pay be sacrificed; that compensation in case of injury be the responsibility of the worker and so on? If this is your objective, may I suggest that you publish thfe following extracts from the minutes of the International Federation of Building and Woodworkers held in Copenhagen in 1954 where piecework and labour-only contracts were discussed. “West Germany: Pieceworkers in fact get only very little above the wage rates laid down in agreements. “Holland: The workers had to do an extreme amount of work in order to earn a wage not lower than the hourly wages of the collective agreement. "Sweden (the effect of the piecework system, on acciiden>t figures): The number of accidents in the building and I construction industry | amounts to about 25 to 30 per 100 workers working a I full year, and at the age lof 50 to 55 the productive age ceases.

“Britain: The operation of the payment by resuK scheme has created difficulties between man and man and between job and job. By that degree payment by re-

sults and bonus systems are a diversion from the main issue of the working-class movemenit.”

Apprentices Mr Langley quoted Mr F. O’SuMdvan, president of the Building Workers’ Union of Australia, and a member of the New South Wales Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Apprenticeship Committee, as saying the effect of labouronly contracts in Australia was such as to destroy apprenticeship training and that, last year, only 20 new bricklaying apprenticeship contracts were entered into altihiouglh as many as 100 bricklayers were employed on some of the larger jobs, the reason being that labouronly contractors had no time to train apprentices. “Having regard for the conditions under which these men work, the New Zealand Carpentry and Joinery Apprenticeship Committee directed local committees to refuse to endorse apprenticeship contracts where I'abour-only systems operate,” Mr Langley said.

“As ‘The Press’ has done its best to condone malpractice and supported a return to sweated labour conditions, may I suggest that leader writers read ‘Our Majority’ by J. T. Paul, and ‘Martyrdom of Women’ by John Roberts in order to better understand why trade unions (including the building trades’ unions) so strenuously oppose returning to a system of payment by results.

“ ‘The Press’ may go further and question trade union officials who have experienced so-called bonus systems, payment by results and incentive payment schemes. Their statements would confirm the expressed opinion of this union that such schemes are nothing but swindiles,” Mr Langley concluded.