WATERSIDE WORK

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 268, 1 August 1918, Page 6

WATERSIDE WORK

1 WHO SHOULD CONTROL? BOARDS AND THE SHIPS A KNOTTY PROBLEM The Wellington Harbour Board has for long wished to have power to take control of all I he labour done on the waterside in tho port. At present the board takes cargo from the ships' slings, and employs the labour to handle it on the wharves and in the stores, but does not employ men to go into ships' holds for the handling of cargo there. In other ports tho boards mostly take no part in the control of labour for any work. At the conference of the Harbours Association yesterday, .Mr. J. W. M'Ewan moved, on behalf of' the Wellington Hoard, the following remit:— To approach the Government with a request that the Harbours Act be amended in such a manner as to empower harbour boards to employ, control, and manago all labour required in the loading and unloading of ships nnd for waterside work generally whether on wharves or an vessels. He pointed out that the resolution was permissive merely. No board would bo compelled to undertake the employment of all labour, but if the power were given the board could, if it found dual control irksome, take control of the labour, even that employed on the ships. , The Cost of Disorganisation. Mr. A. E. Jnll (Napier) said that, ho would second the remit, believing that it was a. very important one for boards. He declared that the preseoit disorganised lack of control of waterside labour was demoralising all the labour of tho country. Ships wished to get quick dispatch at any cost, and would pay very high prices for labour to get it. In order to get quick dispatch, trie ships desired to have a surplus of men on tho waterfronts available always in case of emergency. The result was that tho men had to be paid rates of wages fixed on a high scale because of tho casual nature of their work. If the boards took control it would be possible to employ men permanently. Wages would naturally be on a lower scale, but it would be possible to give pensions to superannuated workers. Ho declared that the present method was "archaic and chaoiie," Mr. W. A. Veilch, M.P. (Wnnganui), strongly supporled the motion. He said that if thero was to be unified control— and ho thought there ought (o )>e—it should be undertaken by the boards or by some Department of State. He said that in th-3 .Railway Department the granting of superannuation and tho classification scheme had achieved much more good for the railway men than all the agitation of the yeai's before these reforms came. > The Ships' Interests. Mr. H. D. 'Heather (Auckland) moved an amendment to provide that tho board to control labour on ships would have tu make arrangement with (ho shipowners. Ho said that tho servants of the ships were capablo men having an interest in the safe storage of cargo, and it would be a drastic ehango to take tho control of labour for this work out of their hands. Furthermore, no such, chaotic condition; as those described by Mr. .lull existed in Auckland. Mr. iV. (jalbraith seconded the amendment pro forma. He was strongly opposed to the proposal. Tho servants of the shipping companies had a strong incentive to care for the safe stowage of cargo, and very much of the cargo nowadays needed careful stowage. After twenty-four years' experienco of waterside work in Wellington he could say that the troublo on tho waterfront with labour did not originate with the shipping companies. Mr. T. ]). Young (Tlmnra) said that the thing of first importance in dealing with ships was quick dispatch. Tho shipping companies had mon in their employ who could secure this, and tho harbour boards by all accounts had not. It would not be the desire of a harbour board servant to send a ship away quickly. Tho longer a shin stayed at tlie wharf the better for the board. Choice of Two Bosses. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh said that it was probable that tho man making M or ■£7 a week on (lie wharf would not agree to any scheme which might bring his wages down to £1 a week. It wns very well for the shipowners to say that they would have no interference, but they had interference already. "And," he said, "they havo a more- tyrannical boss iu the union than they would ovor ; have iu the Wellington Harbour Board. We know that the men go slow, and all the shipowners in the world will not make thein go fast. We know that the men are quite able to take care of themselves, and they are quite n match for the employers in debate and in ability, and in every possible way." He said that to suit tho ships 600 or 700 men had lo be kept "lolling about" idle day after day at the wharves. This was not good for the city, and the city could not tolerate it. The shipowner's opposed this scheme because they cared more for dollars than for the community. Looking for Troublo. Mr. Hutchison (Auckland) said that it would bo looking for troublo to givo control of labour to tho harbour boards. I'hero would bo continual disputes with the shipping companies, for it. was a fact that some stevedores could get much more cargo into a hold than others Mr. W Hinchey (Bluff)'said that although the idea was not to make the scheme mandatory,.the waterside workers were organised from Auckland to the Blull, nnd the unions would by their intliienco compel all boards io take charge of all labour. Mr. Hindmarsh had admitted that the men went slow now. "Well," he said, "I say that under this system the men 'would igo slower." lie declared that it was a wellknown fact that it was impossible to get the same return in work for wages from men employed by local bodies or the Government as from men employed by private individuals. This system' would increase officialism, increase'l lie number of overseers, in uniform. The system would not make for efficiency. The best ii'csults wore, attained in labour by payment by results. Butchers and shearers worked harder than all other workers 'because they were paid by Jesuits. If slioarftrs were paid by the week no man would shear 100 sheep in/a day. If it were possible, the best way would be to pay for (he labour on the waterfront by the ton. Mr. E. Maxwell (New Plymouth) agreed that the boards would be .inviting troublo by adopting the resolution. There would 'be disputes with the men and the shipping companies, and demands for big damages from the ships. /Mr. If. Everett (Molilalia) said that the dual control difficulty would not be eliminated, but would be accentuated. The stowage of cargo would have to bo under the control of the ships' oliicers, who would not be the masters of the men. If un officer gave orders to workers iu the hold the workers would at once, cease work. Wellington Difficulties. Mr. C. E. Danicll (Wellington) explained that the conditions of work on (he harbour front in Wellington were such as to show the great disadvantages of dual control.. There was lack of coordination between tho gangs on the ships and tho Harbour Board's gangs on the wharves and in the sheds. He did not agreo that there woald be trouble if tho boards had charge of labour on ships. At present the shipowners had no interest in the cost of loading or unloading of cargo. They could pay any price and charge the cost to the New Zealand communiiv. lie believed dial it was possible to get a fair deal firom New Zealand workers if they were intelligently handled. Nor did he accept the proposition Hint the harbour boards coukl not get as good work from ships' oliicers in tho matter of the stowage of cargo as the ships could now get. Did tho conference know (hat. it cost 4s. a ton to handle coal overside in Wellington.'' .1 ho Harbour Board put in machines to handle coal, and the shipping companies got all the profits from the cheaper handling of

coal which resulted. Tt cost 4:08,000 for labour to handle coal in Wellington. The board could do it far a third of the cost and give Hie men a cleaner, easier job. The nam saw that the coal-grabs needed less men, and Ihey would not nso them. The shipping companies at once gave way to the men. "Must not offend labour," they said. Mr. J. Tail: (Otago) said that while the scheme might work in Wellington, where shipping was regular and considerable, it might not; be so easy in other parts of (he country. Remit Carried. / The amendment proposed by Mr. llcn(hpr (Auckland) was negatived by 1G votes to 15, nnd the original remit was carried by 17 votes to IG.