LABOUR POSITION ON WATERFRONT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 218, 9 June 1921, Page 6

LABOUR POSITION ON WATERFRONT

THE SYSTEM CONDEMNED GREAT ANNUAL LOSS TO COMMUNITY By Telegraph— Special Correspondent. I Masterton, June S. At the monthly meeting o£ the General Committee of the Masterton A. and P. Association to-day support was asked for the following resolution: —"That ns the labour - position on the waterfront throughout New Zealand is most unsatisfactory, and as it vitally affects tho welfare of this country, the Timaru A. and P. Association invites all kindred associations and farmers’ unions in the Dominion to take the matter up, and ask the Minister of Labour to convene a conference of all harbour boards, with a view to the adoption of some system of permanent labour on wharves; the association is also of opinion that the harbour boards of tho Dominion should have an executive in Wellington to regulate shipping as much as possible at each port." In a cbverlng letter from the Timaru A. and P. Association it was stated that when moving the resolution Mr. Bernard Tripp had said that the public were now paying nine million pounds more a year in freights than before tho war, and that ten million pounds were being collected in taxation. Through tho unsatisfactory state of labour on the waterfronts some millions of pounds were lost annually, both directly and indirectly. This loss could be stopped. Recently a

sea captain had told Mr. Tripp that New Zealand was the worst country in the world for the dispatch of vessels —worse even than Australia. Often steamers were held up for many days at a loss of -E5OO per day, and time and money were lost through ships running up and down tho coast for cargo. The chairman (Mr. W. H. Buick) moved that the resolution be supported. Mr. David Caselberg, who seconded the motion, said that it was palpable to anyone visiting the Wellington waterfront that things required to be altered. Only the other, day a watersider had been knocked overboard because he did not happen to please his fellow-workers. There were a lot of fine fellows employed on the wharf, but, unfortuhately, they were not allowed to work as they would like. If they did, they never knew when something might be dropped on them. There was. no - worse system in the world than that under which New Zealand watersidera worked. Mr. L. T. Daniell said that the trouble was that a shipping combine controlled waterfront labour. The number of men *. employed on the Wellington wharves averaged 375 daily, whilst the number seeking employment was 15)9. Mr. G. H. Perry, speaking from personal experience, said that wharf labourers did not trouble themselves to work very hard. He was one of those who went to Wellington during the 1913 strike. The authorities thought they were hard worked compared to the regular wharf labourers. The Wellington wharves were run on the worst system in New Zealand. Mr. William Perry said that the cost of loading a vessel now was just about double the pre-war figures. He understood that it cost A'IOOO per day to keep some vessels in port while they were being loaded. These very heavy charges were passed on to the producer. • Mr. David Smith said that Mr. 0. B.

Daniell had told him that despite the - , fact that the Wellington Harbour Board ! had supplied mechanical labour-saving devices on the wharves, it took more men and longer to load n boat to-day than formerly. The motion was carried unanimously.