The Waterside Control System

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 27, 26 October 1940, Page 13

The Waterside Control System

Sir, —-Your leading article of today's date referring to the increased costs to be met by the AVellington Harbour Board as a result of the order of the Waterfront Control Commission in extending the contract system to casual waterside workers in the employ of the board is so at varjance with fact that it calls for cixrreetion in order that the interested readers of your paper may be correctly informed. The article states that the new system will result in increasing wages cost to the harbour board by £25,000 to £30,000 a year. The facts are that a sum of £12,000 of the amount in question represents increases paid to workers in the employ of the board by reason of the Arbitration Court cost of living bonus, and is therefore not the result of any action of the AVaterfront Control Commission. A further £5OOO represents an estimated amount to be paid in profits against which there will be a saving to the board in hourly wages bv quicker working, Which provides a setoff sufficient to pay the profit without additional cost to the board.

The foregoing will be sufficient to illustrate how wide of the mark is the article in regard, to costs and consequently the remarks based on same are of little value.

It may be mentioned that the Wellington Harbour Board was faced with the loss of £lO,OOO on its working for the half-year ended March 31 last (which, by the way, was before the commission was appointed), together with the reduction in the revenue due to a lesser number of overseas ships, working the port, and the addition of the sum of £12,000 cost of living bonus would have been sufficient to compel the board to seek an increase in its charges. It is true that the commission has added to those costs by increased rates Which includes the cost of living bonus of 5 per cent, as awarded to all other industrial workers and by the fact that the contract scheme has resulted in the quicker turn-round of shipping with a consequent lessening of revenue to the board, but it contends that what it ha« done can be justified as equitable. —I am, etc.. R. E. PRICE, for Commission. October 25.

[Mr. Price is correct in stating that the whole of toe estimated increase of £25,000 in wages costs is not due to the system of working instituted by the AVaterfront Control Commission. AVhat the actual cost will be from the new method of working is not yet clearly known. The point of our comment on the subject, however, was that while it. was generally agreed that the need for 'more rapid cargo handling in wartime is paramount and urgent and that greater efficiency deserved tq be paid for. it was desirable that the full cost of the innovation to the community should be made known. Whether that coSt in the case of AA’ellington is £25,000, £15,000, or even £lO,OOO. the public who ha ve to pay are. still entitled to the information which will enable them to form a just judgment as to the merits of the new methods introduced.]