Waterside Union’s Reply To “The Press”

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30560, 1 October 1964, Page 20

Waterside Union’s Reply To “The Press”

“The opening paragraph of this malicious editorial is only the first lie to be told to the public, whether done deliberately or by a complete lack of knowledge of waterfront matters,” says Mr J. E. Napier, general secretary of the Northern, Taranaki, Wellington. and Canterbury Waterside Workers’ Federation, in an article in the latest issue of the “Waterfront Worker,” commenting on a leading article in “The Press” on August 31 which discussed machines and labour on the waterfront. “At no time have waterside workers sought legislation to prevent displacement of labour by machinery on the wharves. At no time have waterside workers prevented —or attempted to prevent—employers from introducing machinery for any modernisation of cargo handling methods,” Mr Napier says. “Far from hindering modernisation in any way whatsoever, waterside workers have co-operated to the full with their employers—and this for a number of years past. What waterside workers have asked is that the Waterfront Industry Act, 1953, section 11 (2), be amended to define more clearly its original intention and give to waterside workers the complete coverage of any waterside work they have been performing under the old methods of work—when modernisation or any new methods are introduced. “There are no known mechanical operations being performed, or contemplated being performed, on New Zealand waterfronts, that waterside workers cannot completely perform, or be trained to perform. “For a number of years the representatives of the port unions have unsuccessfully requested the New Zealand port employers to negotiate reasonable conditions to apply regarding the introduction of mechanical units which involve gang strength reductions and speedier cargo handling. The Waterfront Industry Tribunal, when making general principal orders for conditions of work, has also failed adequately to prescribe equitable conditions, with the result that up to the present time all the benefits of this have gone solely to the port employers, without just consideration for the workers involved. “The charge of ‘featherbedding’ is just another figment of imagination. It has never been requested by waterside workers in any proposals submitted for consideration. All they ask is comparable consideration similar to that accorded workers in other countries in similar circumstances. “The reference to waterside workers at the Port of Lyttelton again is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. They were not ‘obstructive’ or endeavouring to prevent progress, as is implied in the editorial. “Far from it. In fact, they offered full co-operation in handling the logs from Eyrewell forest under the new method; they did not ask for generous treatment.

“They actually stated they were prepared to negotiate on the basis of reduced gang strengths with mechanical equipment provided that all the waterside work involved

was performed by their members. "The exception stated by them was that if the mechanical equipment used by the employer was owned by the Lyttelton Harbour Board and operated by members of the New Zealand Harbour Board Permanent Employees Union, then they would not claim that work.

“The contractor concerned wished to bring in his own mechancial equipment his own labour, and perform waterside work, after displacing a number of w«ter side workers by a reduced gang strength aboard the ship and on the wharf, and deprive waterside workers from the operations of stock-piling in the adjacent wharf area and of loading from the stockpile to the ship’s side. “Perhaps the writer of The Press’ editorial feels that the waterside workers should gracefully disappear let others in to do their work — and accept this as the price for modernisation. “We can assure him such will not be the case—such will be resisted to the full. "The retention of waterside work for waterside workers is of paramount importance to members of port unions. “We have never attempted a Luddite solution—but what waterside work that remains in modernisation rightfully belongs to waterside workers and they will not peacefully give it away. “In regard to modernisation generally, perhaps it is quite pertinent to quote from the annual report of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, 1964, which states, inter alia: *The trade union movement did not take a negative attitude to changing methods of production and the new systems in transport. Our attitude was quite posiHve in every respect, but when changes were proposed the workers demanded to be consulted at all levels. “ ‘Our concern was that any change or alteration to lower the cost of production and distribution shall not be permitted to lower the rates of wages to workers, destroy their conditions of employment, uproot their domestic life, disrupt the habits and levels of living, and bring about mental upset, dissatisfaction and discontent’ “The editorial reference to ‘solutions In any industry’ and ‘goodwill’ and ‘the economic sacrifice should not be made by workers alone,’ are quite true when considered on their merit. “Up to date tile only ‘goodwill and sacrifice’ regarding modernisation on New Zealand waterfronts has come from the workers—with the employers demanding more and more unreasonable sacrifice and displaying remarkably Httle goodwill. “If the writer of ‘The Press’ editorial requires some truthful material for his paper, he should peruse the counter-proposals of the New Zealand Port Employers in their endeavour to inflict their ideas of modern working conditions for waterside workers by way of a new general principal order. This attack upon workers’ conditions will be far more factual than the mischievous attack made upon the waterside workers in the editorial of August 31 and be of more interest to the general public.”