WATERFRONT WORK

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 261, 29 July 1921, Page 6

WATERFRONT WORK

PRESENT SYSTEM CRITICISED BY N.Z. FARMERS’ UNION Nine remits advocating that some effort should be made to improve the system of working on the waterfront were on tho order paper of the N.Z. Farmers’ Union Conference yesterday. One remit only was moved, and eventually an amendment was carried, but the conference endorsed the essential principle of all tho remits, as it was the same in each case. Captain Colbeck (Auckland) moved: "That in view of the great importance to the public and tho industries of tho Dominion of efficient control and working of tho waterfront industry, it be au earnest recommendation to the Government that they institute an early and exhaustive inquiry into tho whole matter of cargo handling at the various ports." The mover said that the waste of time and money on the waterfront was astounding. He quoted figures obtained by Mr. G. Mitchell, M.P., concerning work at the port of Wellington. It was not a question of wages, he said, but of determination on tho part of the men not to work. The average earnings of the men were not so great as many supposed. The present system was not even in the interests of tho men. A ship that should be turned round in one month now took three, and the loss on this account was enormous. Tho fault lay with tho system, not with the men. The men had to spend too mucli time in idleness. He wished tho conference to insist on the abolition of-the present iniquitous system. Mr. 11. D. Duxfiold (Auckland) seconded the motion. He blamed tho Government for having allowed matters to drift after what the farmers had done to. improve things on the Auckland waterfront in 1911. In Auckland, when inquiries were made of the watersiders’ leaders, the latter said candidly that the trouble was that there were about three times more mon on the waterfront than could get employment. Mr. E. Bowman (Southland) said that the Producers’ Committee had been discussing the waterfront question with the Minister, and had dealt with every phase of the question that it could think of. The Minister was dealing with the problem in his own way. He was making his preliminary investigations in a quiet way, but was obtaining much useful information. The Government would want the support of the farmers in the matter. There seemed to be no prospect of shipping- companies assisting in the solution of the problem. Mr. W. D. Lysnar, M.P. (Gisborne), thought that a solution might be found if the men were prepared to take contracts for the discharge of boats. If they would not, then the alternative was the employment of permanent labour on the wharves. Why the shipping companies should shrink from giving a contract he could not conceive. At present the ships were paying the wages for twice as many men as were needed, and the men who were idle had to claim so much for the time they did work that rates were forced up. The curse of the present system was overtime, and the way in which the men were induced to protract their jobs. Mr. H. E. Russoll (Hawke’s Bay) believed that waterside labour would never agree to the contract system ■ while it was led by its present fenders.

Mr. Lysnar: No, it is the leaders who are asking for it. Don’t make any .mistake.

Mr. C. K. Wilson (Auckland) observed that a former leader of direct action in New Zealand was fighting to-day for the contract system on a co-operative basis. He believed there was no better system than that of permanent employment on tho wharves. It worked splendidly in New South Wales. Mr. G. P. Johnston (Southland) moved that the question before tho conft'ronce should be referred to the Dominion executive, which should confer with the Government regarding the betterment of conditions on the waterfront.

An inquiry into all the facts was essential, said Captain Colbeck, in replying. It was a mystery why th® shipping people were always opposed to any echemo that involved a change from the present system. After the 1913 strike, when the farmers were promised that their scheme would be adopted, it was the shipping companies that upset this. Mr. Johnston’s amendment was carried.