THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1988. A meat industry future

Press, 12 July 1988, Page 12

THE PRESS TUESDAY, JULY 12, 1988. A meat industry future

Shock is giving way to anger among many workers who lost their jobs when the Islington and Burnside freezing works were closed for good last week. The blow had been telegraphed, but nevertheless seems to have caught many unawares. The 1600 people who have lost their jobs as a result of the closings will attract the community’s sympathy — as, indeed, it goes to all of the thousands of people losing jobs in the present economic upheaval. Their plight is by no means unique; nor are they likely to be the last of their industry to suffer redundancy this year. The Islington and Burnside workers are pressing hard for their redundancy claims, which is a matter between them and their employers; but when their anger threatens to spill over to other unions and other meat plants, they risk losing public good will. Some of this probably has dissipated anyway in reaction to the antagonistic response of the Meat Workers’ Union to proposals for extra shifts, and therefore extra jobs for its members, at two Canterbury plants that are still in action. The Fortex plant, near Ashburton, was the first meat processing plant in the country to run a second shift. This it began in Januaiy, but only after six months of testy negotiations with an unco-operative union. Fortex now proposes a third shift, offering employment for 60 more workers, when the new killing season opens in November. Almost across the fence from the closed Islington works, at Sockburn, C.S. Stevens proposes a second shift at its plant, and this would create 160 extra jobs at the peak of the killing season.

Outsiders could be forgiven for thinking that these proposals, hard on the heels of Islington’s demise, would be welcome news to redundant meat workers. That is not the view taken by the union, however. What is more alarming for the future of the beleaguered meat industry is that the Meat Workers’ Union still insists on fighting a rear-guard action against efficient work methods that would reduce the amount of time that expensive plant lies idle. By now the lesson should have been learned: the meat processing industry for too long has been

over-capitalised and inefficient. Last week’s closings were a direct consequence of this. Obstructing attempts to rectify the problem not only prevents jobs being created for unemployed meat workers, but threatens also the continued existence of other jobs in the industry. ■. . Nothing will be gained from union agitation against live sheep exports. The live sheep exports did hot undo. Islington and Burnside; live sheep exports came into being simply because the meat industry in New Zealand was not — and is still not — returning to farmers sufficient, income from the lambs they rear to encourage them to produce more for the industry to kill. Many farmers have shifted to- other ways of farming; others have gone into dry stock; and still others have attempted 7 to find a better market for their product’ by selling it live overseas. ■' «

Stifling that trade does not, of itself, make the local meat industry a more attractive option for the farmer; this will happen only when efficiencies in processing and reduced mark-ups for the middlemen enable the industry to offer farmers a bigger share of the British retail price of New Zealand lamb than the 8 per cent they currently get. Only the bleakest of pessimists would doubt that the meat industry in New Zealand is capable of a bright future. It is certainly possible. Whether it will be achieved will depend on the speed of change within the industry and, in turn, this will depend in no small measure on the unions. A meat industry conference such as that proposed by the Meat Workers’ Union, might foster some of the communication that should have been going on between vitally interested parties for the last two years or more; but it is unlikely to discover anything about the plight of the industry — or of the direction that it needs to take — that is not known already. In practical terms, it is probably unrealistic for competing, commercial enterprises to lay all their cards on the table under the gaze of rivals and employees alike. What the industry needs is the kiss of life, not readings from a medical text book.