WHARF WORK

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 75, 25 September 1941, Page 10

WHARF WORK

REPORT TO BOARD

CONTROL COMMISSION

REPLY TO COMMITTEE

The report of the committee on waterfront ' operations, presented to last night's meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board, and published on page 4 of this issue, was commented on today by the Waterfront Control Commission, as follows:— The Wellington Harbour Board, at its meeting held last night, submitted a lengthy report to the Press on the question of the increased wages granted to waterside workers and increased handling costs. From Press reports it would appear that this question was referred to a committee appointed by that body about a month ago, and all those connected with waterside work did anticipate and had a right to anticipate that when an investigation was being made that this committee would hear evidence from interested parties such as the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union, the Harbour Board Employees' Union, and the Waterfront Control Commission. From the statement which appeared in the Press and the statement which has been supplied to the Commission, it would appear that the board has accepted the report of its chief executive officer, and it is doubtful if the committee made any investigation as to cargo handling costs and how these costs were allocated. ,WAGE INCREASES. ' • It is, of course, true that the wage rates of the waterside workers have been increased since 1935 and it is equally true that the earnings of the waterside workers in that year and for some years previous was so much below the bare subsistence level, that men with dependants were forced to apply to the State for assistance to maintain their families during that period. . Therefore,. to quote a percentage wage rate increase from a very low level of a- depression period to a comparatively high war level period, presents a picture to the public which has little relation to the actual living standards of waterside workers as the earnings of these men are determined to a far greater extent by the regularity of employment and by the amount of overtime work than by actual wage rates. The report states that wage rates have been increased by 61 per cent, since 1935, and it proves this by adding to the present wage rate the surplus wages earned by these**workers who were employed on a contract basis. These earnings, however, are for increased effort and therefore should not have been so included. The wage level of 1935 was 2s 2d, the present wage level is 2s 11 7-10 d; this is only 37.3 per cent. . ' CARGO-HANDLING COSTS. Working "round the clock" and increased overtime generally have undoubtedly increased handling costs, and strangely enough the report suggests many reasons for. increased handling costs which in the opinion of the Waterfront Control Commission do apply. It appears, also, that two important matters which have been the greatest cause.; of increased costs have not been stressed. The special rates payable for increased overtime work, Monday to Friday, Saturday evening and Sunday work have increased handling costs, but congestion of sheds rnusjt have increased handling costs to the Wellington Harbour Board as much as any other factor, and it is strange indeed that although the Wellington Harbour Board, and; indeed, the British Ministry of Shipping, found it necessary to convene a special conference not long ago to deal with this matter from the reports submitted to us and from our knowledge-that extra labour had been employed shifting cargo and stacking cargo, delivery charges have not increased, while receiving charges show substantial increase. SPEED OF WORKING. The statement purports'to show that there has been a serious falling-off in the rate of work from the year 1935 to the present time, but this statement, like others, is not a complete picture of the actual position by any stretch of imagination. In 1935 the greater part of the cargo handled was what j known as measurement cargo— h 1941 the greater part of the cargo is weight cargo, but even allowing for that the statement submitted tt> Harbour Board does not tally with the statement submitted by the board to the Waterfront Control Commission. Up to March 31, from July, 1940, to January, 1941, the rate of work per gang per hour was 14.45 tons. That includes all classes of cargo and the , speed of handling ranges from 31f tons per hour to 9i tons per gang per hour, ! according to the class of cargo handled arid the facilities given by the Harbour Board to take it away from the ship's hook,, and the congestion of sheds in many cases prevented the cai'go being handled expeditiously. An examination of the figures submitted by the Harbour Board to the Waterfront Control Commission and the figures taken by the Commission from the vessels' manifest, show very clearly that the figures presented by the Harbour Board are not accurate. On one ship the figures disclose that the rate of discharge was 10.88, while the actual rate of discharge on that vessel was 15.49. The Commission has only received a copy of the figures today, and it is not our intention to deal fully with the report at present. The question of handling costs to the Wellington Harbour Board can be determined accurately only by one method, namely, a practical test, and the Waterfront Control Commission is prepared to undertake it. We will discharge any number of vessels that the Wellington Harbour Board may determine, coastal or overseas, and land the cargo into the shed at a rate much less than that which the Harbour Board states it costs at the present time. The Commission will, of course, have no responsibility for delivery. The statement of the Harbour Board is likely to mislead the public, as the total man hours required in receiving cargo from the ship's hook to the wharf shed does not constitute more than one-sixth of the total man hours required to load and discharge vessels at Wellington. May we ask the question why it is that the public of Wellington undertake the delivery of cargo from the hook to the wharf shed when the ship owner undertakes this work at the port of Auckland? In Wellington it is a charge against a public body— in Auckland it is a charge against the ship owner, why? The Waterfront Control Commission intends to make a full investigation of the figures submitted by the Harbour Board and present a report to the Press as soon as time permits.