CARGO HANDLING

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 37, 12 August 1942, Page 3

CARGO HANDLING

REPLY TO EMPLOYERS

MR. PRICE'S STATEMENT

"My attention has been drawn to the statement appearing in ''The Post' ot* August 7, made by the assistant secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Employers' Association, which comments on facts and figures given by me in my recent address to. the Auckland Chamber of Commerce," states Mr. R. E. Price, of the Waterfront Control Commission. "The statement of the employers' representative is a complete denial of both speedier cargo working and savings in costs of working major classes of overseas exports to which I referred ' in my address. He also takes credit to-his association for the reduction in the number of days overseas vessels remain on the coast of New Zealand, due to a reduction in the number of port§ of call and time saved by shift working. He states, further, that the basis of comparison taken by me in assessing savings was not a true guide. "In the first place I gave credit to the overseas shipowners for an average of seven days saved for each vessel on the coast of this Dominion by a reduction in the number of ports of call. I also gave credit largely to waterside workers for the eight days a ship saved by the working "of the shift system and on Sundays and holidays, together with the further five days saved by speedier working. It will be seen, therefore, tnat the commission is not very much concerned about credit to itself but is only anxious to record the savings effected. In regard to' the statements made by me, they were supported by facts and figures from the uecords of the Waterfront Control Commission, which shipping company representatives previously admitted to be both comprehensive and reliable, and the 'basis of comparison of times spent on the coast of New Zealand by overseas vessels was taken separately for discharging and loading vessels, and- does, therefore, represent a true appraisement. FIGURES SHOW POSITION. "The following figures will confirm this: — * Days. Time overseas vessels on coast loading and discharging before commission control ...... 42.1 Time overseas vessels on coast, loading only before commission control 26.8 Time overseas vessels on coast loading and discharging, year ending , 31/3/42 (commission control) ... .: 23.1 Time overseas vessels on coast loading only, year ending 31/3/42 (commisison control) . 9.3 "Allowance Dy way of deduction, which averages 2.5 days a vessel, has been made from the .commission's figures for vessels which remained on the coast for the purpose of repairs- or overhauls vyhen no cargo operations were undertaken. Though inward cargo was less in quantity than previous years, what did enter the coyntry was carried by a much lesser number of vessels than formerly, so that the average quantity a ship was actually greater than pre-war days, and therefore a further credit to savings in time in loading and discharging vessels which was not taken could be properly claimed. "In regard to the costs ol working the important classes of export cargoes which I touched upon in my address to the Auckland chamber, I am in a position to prove that the contract rates received by the commission to* day for meat, butter, wool, and cheese are less than the rates paid to private stevedores in 1921 at Auckland (claim* ed to be the most expensive port for labour charges), the private contractors in 1921 making a separate charge for the supply of cargo equipment, supervision, and insurances,' so that tonnage rates at that time were similarly based to the tonnage rates received by the commission today. EXPERT CONTRACTORS. ' "The commission now has the largest expert staff for contracting In the -Dominion, many of its officers having been recruited from stevedoring ! firms. The staff is not only capable of I performing the work expeditiously, but the commission is prepared to accept the complete contracting in place of its present partial contracting for overseas vessels for the whole of the Dominion at a lesser rate than is paid to contractors at present. This should be a clear indication that the costs can still be reduced, and the commission is prepared to accept the responsibility for, it immediately, i "It is unfortunate that the commission is not able to publish tables mdi-> eating tonnages of cargo, etc., handled at the various ports for the year ending March 31, 1942, for some illuminating facts would have been disclosed bearing on the speed and working and saving effected. It was admitted that costs of handling general cargo had increased, principally because 65 per cent, of the work was performed during, overtime hours, against 15 per cent, before the establishment of. the comrflission, and also because of shed congestion and the disadvantages oi night working, but the records of the commission do disclose that suth increased'costs do not exceed the aggregate increases granted by way of wage increases and cost-of-living bonus. "In respect to coastal vessels, the commission has no data from which comparisons can be made as to tonnage costs, and very little data relating to the speed of working cargo except at the port of Wellington, where the Harbour Board discharging foreman's cargo figures for every ship worked definitely show increased speed ,of working cargo through the sheds since commission control. The denial of the Waterside Employers' Association that an improvement in the speed of working has taken place is contrary to the evidence of the commission's day-by-day records, which are open for perusal to any reasonable citizen of this Dominion,"