The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1964. Waterfront Work

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30395, 20 March 1964, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1964. Waterfront Work

What has happened to make Wellington watersiders change their views so radically about the streamlining of export shipping? A month ago they, with other transport workers, were talking very sensibly about sharing the benefits of modernisation (which they are entitled to do) and about seeking compensation for redundant workers (of whom there are likely to be few). Now they are talking militantly about “ projected attacks on working conditions ” and •* blatant interference ” with industrial laws. They may know something that is not generally known; but this is unlikely. The uncomfortable suspicion is that, somehow, they have been given the wrong impression of what has been recommended.

All interests concerned in export shipping know that they need the co-operation of waterfront labour in reforming the handling of New Zealand exports; they are not likely to go out of their way to antagonise waterfront labour. Nothing in the “streamlining “ report ” would undermine the economic or social position of watersiders—rather the reverse. Why should the watersiders cling to a 59-hour week as one of their cherished conditions when they could earn their £2O-odd a week on shift work? As the streamlining report pointed out, many watersiders now have to leave home at 7 a.m. and do not get home again until 11 p.m. for much of the year. What kind of life is that? If they worked in shifts some of them would get home at 6 p.m., and others, leaving home at 4 p.m., would be home again at 11 p.m. Other recommendations in the report are just as reasonable. The report does not aim at making savings on the labour of watersiders (in New Zealand currency) but much larger savings on the turn-round of ships (paid for in sterling). If watersiders can point to any flaw in the committee’s report they are sure to get a sympathetic hearing. While they talk in generalities, however, the feeling will persist that their opposition is based on nothing more substantial than tradition and conservatism.