Fortex shift work

Press, 3 December 1987, Page 50

Fortex shift work

Sir,—lntroducing double shifts to the slaughter board does not, by itself, reduce the number of staff required in the industry. It will mean that fewer freezing works are required, with some employing double the staff to man extra shifts. Union opposition, therefore, must be based on the fact that shift work will require some relocation by meat workers as some works close and their throughput is taken up by more efficient plants. The strident demands of the Meat Workers’ Union must ring hollow to the thousands from other Industries and the former Public Service who have either been prepared to work shifts or have had to relocate their families to take up alternative employment opportunities; and to their union advocates who have accepted reluctantly New Zealand’s need for greater productivity to even maintain its place in the world. The meat-processing industry has no special place under the sun. — Yours, etc.,

R. P. CURD. December 1, 1987.

Sir,—K. Hawkins (November 26) accuses me of being naive and illogical, without substantiating such claims, and then demonstrates exactly those qualities by stating that by introducing shift work on every chain in the country dwindling stock numbers will be processed in a much shorter period, thus not meeting market requirements. Even a doubling of killing capacity would not have the slightest effect on the flow of sheep for slaughter, which is influenced by age, growth rate, climate, market returns, company premiums, etc. Unlike Fortex, not all existing works are suitable for shift work and there is no question of introducing this “on every chain in the country.” The real danger tb meat workers’ jobs is "dwindling stock numbers” which have caused, and will continue to cause, chain and works closings. Increased efficiency and, therefore, profitability to producers, will reverse this trend, and shift work is one means of achieving this. — Yours, etc., ' ALAN G. GRANT. December 1, 1987.