ON THE WATERFRONT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 226, 18 June 1920, Page 8

ON THE WATERFRONT

| HUGE LOSS IN EFFICIENCY

f . REPORT BY MR. G. MITCHELL, M.P.

s. / At the suggestion of lis executive, Mr, [;• «• •. W.Jlitchell,' ALP., has submitted a r"; i ; report to. the Central Progress League covoHnft his investigations regarding the alleged decrease in efficiency of labour h & pn the Wellington waterfront, in relat: tion to the high cost of living; also the •V';'. .effect, of the rumoured general slackeni jng off . of labour, efficiency in the building trades.-The report runs as follows: 1 ~ Buildino Trades. ' | " _ "Basing , the loss in efficiency in build- !•■■•■■■■ ing trades on tho replies to hand in tanswer to my circular addressed to i , ■ builders and contractors, the percentage i ■ is about 20 per cent. Owing to the non,i receipt of replies from many of the builders, It is hoped and believed that | ■ this percentage does not apply right cV ; v.,' through the building trade. Upon rej:}.beipt of further data, I will bring down a toller''and' more'final report on this • mattor. J i• \ . Waterfront Workers. "By the table of comparative figures attached - hereto, compiled from -figures K■ ; r obtained from the Harbour Board, it will . bo seen that the loss in efficiency in S ! ' ; ; ■ 1919,' compared with that of 1915 stand- |- > • ard was 255,778 hours, costing -.£26,643, and.for the past four years it totalled 509,159 hours, which, at the prevailing ! rate of pay each year, totals .£51,446. s The Harbour Board employ one-third of t . • the labour on the local waterfront, and : ■ there is no . reason to believe that their 'employees are lass efficient than any other watersiders. Tho same union, ami i;.,.- - the same policy governs them all." The }, , actual low in efficiency is, therefore, f three times that shown by the Harbour [; ;-. .-Board figures;-or a loss of 1,527,477. [/:-/ hours, coating at average rates of nay • f6r four years, period 1915-1919, ,£154,339. i . When costing goods, all charges wore < added, and profits charged on the cost ' . ..of goods in store. The ini/v . orease on this sum, representing loss of P : .efficiency,'to cover expenses and profit, ■ . would be not less than .10 per cent., I ;:'V.* .which equals i£15,435. Thus the goods ■'ore'-passed on to the retailer with an added inefficiency tax of 772. The I Average percentage added by the retailer to cover cost, handling and profit would £>.•/. be' at least 15 per cent., making a gross : total of .£195,237 added to the people's goods .during, the past, four years, on account of loss inefficiency on the. Wellington wharves alone, and no living l'-v * , soui receiving l benefit. I do not believe - that this loss is typical of other waterJ ; ' - fronts in tho Dominion, but if it is, and ( the amount multiplied by four (as we .have roughly a. quarter of. the waterside labour here in Wellington); what an op- . palling inefficiency tax was passed on to the people from, the wharves alone last year. , . "Go-slow" Policy, "This 'go-slow' policy does not hit the . /great autocratic shipping companies: ' they care not what , the-cost is so long as their ships are not held up. .All extra, charges are passed on to the. people, "j 7 with interest. ... - It does not 'luurt '/ the importer, the wholesaler, or the re- • tailer—they merely add their little-toll, and pass it on, leaving the poor people, V • who mu6t pay, to wonder why goods should be so dear. "I am quite sure that this huge sum is nothing! in comparison with profits made .by merchants, land and house, speculators, hide dealers, and others, but no ; wrong on their part, no matter how selfish, and grasping, can justify this wicked waste of time which if oontinued at -,V the present rate, will add a greater bur;'jden on the poor than they can bear, and is / will ultimately end in grave distress. The consistent drop in efficiency'revealed by these figures shows that 'go slow' is the - . doliborate policy of the men's leaders. I am quite clear in my own mind that it is 'gross- profiteering out of tlw poor people. I am,. moreover, sure that it does not. express-the wisn or intention A : of the great bulk of the watersides, who are loyal citizens, fathers of families. /' and mete who have a stake and interest in the country, a love of Justice towards the working people, and women and little , children. There is evidence . of a general slackening all round, yet • there never' was a time more inopportune in the world's history for a lessening of effort.

Housing Problems. , "Aa' regards housing, the only possible solution of the shortage is to build more koines, and do it quickly. To \lo this we require . a ..bold policy, energetically administered by • the Government, and hard wort by all men v engaged in the .building trades, remembering all tho i time that dvery hour wasted, and undue ■ rate of profit , charged on any building ..material in a' house, . means more Tent or .interest for the working man who occui.pies .it., By all means pay labour well, and stop exploitation by anyone, but no •evil,influence should bo allowed to undermine ojir national efficiency in any branch of life, for in all case? the worker, by brain-or muscle, must pay. Allow me to express the hope that this 'go-slow' cancer 'does not eat its way into any other branches of labour. We need 'homes, schools, better education, -railways, water, power, roads, national ' superannuation, and help for large families and a general uplift in the standard of life and-thought and' efficiency. These great measures of social reform - and justice can only be obtained by the labour of the fit; by each i and all t giving- of ihis best for the common good. We can lose all our wealth in gold l , but not our standard of efficiency in -^k.. without national decay and untold sufferings to our people. ' General Unrest. "I sincerely trust that this general unlest is but a passing phase in our hisdue to post-war conditions; but one is forced to the conclusion that it - goes muoh deeper, and is due to the spirit of selfishness and greed of the producer;.' and- .the profiteer, on the ono hand, and . the deliberate policy of tho extreme Labour leaders on the other. When both Capital and organised Labour are 6elfish, grasping and distrust- , ful of each other, and fail to realise that they each and all have a national duty . Jo the people, and to the commonwealth, "there is.littlo hope of that industrial peace, goodwill'and happiness we all bo much desire. Surely hhen it is time both Capital «nd Labour' got. together and • cleared our pack of all the dead weight under which we now struggle."

• Striking Figures. . / Mr. Mitchell has attached to the re.port a comparative statement showing tlw loss in efficiency on the Wellington waterfront. The figures were taken from the report of tho Wellington Harbour •Board, and refer only to their employees, who number approximately one-third of •the total waterside workers employed on the Wellington waterfront. Tho table 'does not include the handling of coal or transhipments, nor docs it take into consideration time lost in strikes, stopwork meetings, or the influenza epidemic. There was extra labour in the years 1917, 1918, and 1919, on account of the cool storage of - cheese, but this, he explains, ■was offset by extra facilities employed for handling goods. Approximate Losses. In 1915, 795,124 tons were handled, absorbing 709,500 tours at the rate' of 25111b. per hour worked; for the succeeding years the figures were: 1916, 842,526 tons, 809,028 hours, 23331b.; 1917, 726,725 tons, 701,629 hours, 23191b.; 1918, 704,039 tone, 82-1,013 hours, 20771b.; 1919, 777,580 tons, 949,437 'hours, 18311b. In 1915 the average wage per hour was Is, 6Jd. In 1916 the percentage of loss in efficiency, based on tjje 1915 standard," was 7 per cent., involving a loss of 57,532 hours, calculated on the average wage per man of Is. 10d., and representing a total cost, bcoaußß of a decrease in efficiently, of .£5273 15s. 4<l. For the succeeding years tho figures were as follow:—1917, percentage of tons 8 per cent., loss, in working hours, 53,386, average wage Is. lljjd., total cost *85282 19s. lOd.; 1918, percentage of loss 17 per - cent., loss in hours I 142,46.1, avornge wage, 25., total cost' .£14,246 03.; 1919, percentage of loss 27 pericent.yrloss in hours,-.255,778/ aaverago iV&ge; 2s. Id.,' total cost ,£26,643 10s; lOd. Total loss of oficienoy 'in hoiire. 509,159, representing a total oost of *651,440 12s. I for the four /rears. ,