WATERFRONT WORK

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 58, 6 September 1945, Page 9

WATERFRONT WORK

BONUS PAYMENT SYSTEM

SHOULD "SEA-GULLS" SHARE?

Whether non-unionist waterside workers, or "sea-gulls" as they 'are called, should have the right to sljare equally with members of the Waterside Workers' Union in the distribution of bonus payments from profits earned under the contract system of handling cargoes was discussed for the greater part of yesterday afternoon in the House of Representatives. The debate originated from a report presented by Mr. D. W. Coleman (Government, Gisborne) as chairman of the Labour Bills Committee, recommending that favourable consideration be given by the Government to representations in a petition by William P. Storey and 64 others for the payment of bonuses to non-unionist waterside workers.

The petitioners also asked for the application of the term "seagull" to non-unionist workers to be made illegal, for the erection of shelters on the waterfront ror the use of nonunionist workers, and for a better system of employment of labour, but m respect to these representations the committee said it had no recommendation to make. j The committee's report was adopted. Mr. R. M. Algie (National, Remuera) said he was as pleased with the result of the petition, the first he had presented, as he was surprised to hear it. Under the contract system of handling cargoes, if operations were very successful, the profit that was earned was distributed as a bonus payment after a certain time, but only union labour participated even when non-unionists contributed to the earning of the profit. The non-unionists contended that they were entitled, to share in a profit earned under such circumstances. He was grateful to the committee for the consideration it had given to the petition, and he hoped the Government would be as generous in its approach to the committee's recommendation. l Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that in evidence before the committee, Mr. James Roberts, a member of the Waterfront Control Commission, had stated that under the conFract. system profits amounting to £660,000 had been earned in five years. The Waterside Workers' Union limited its membership, but there had been times during the war when that membership was not sufficient to service shipping expeditiously and a large number of other men had.assisted on the wharves at nights and weekends and also at other times. Mr. Roberts had not suggested it was unreasonable that such men should participate in profits earned but had stated that it was impracticable. Formerly, however, such a practice had been in yogue for 18 months, and that being so there was some merit surely in the petition. A BIG QUESTION. Mr. F. Langstone (Government, Waiinarino) said the petition opened up a bic question. There were many people giving services in undertakings where there were no profits to share. Tram- . way workers were in that position and they transported the waterside workers and other workers to their occupations. Many of the non-unionists, he had been told, were in good positions j and worked on the wharves in their spare time as it suited them, and that they were not prepared to share with the union waterside workers any of what they earned in their main occupations. Mr. Poison: What about those who are not in a good position? Mr.- Langstone said there might be some who were not in good positions. He added that the petition and the discussion that had taken place showed that the present waterfront control system was effective. He welcomed "these little exposures" from time to time, particularly as so many hard words were said about the working man...The-fact-that-a,profit of £660,000. liad been made by the present organisation in five years was also an indi-. cation of the handsome profits that had been made in the past through private stevedoring. They must have amounted to hundreds, thousands, and even millions of pounds. , Mr. W. A. Bodkin (National, Central Otago) said that the Minister of Labour had admitted more than once that the present system was more expensive. Mr. Langstone replied that the evidence before the committee showed that some very good profits had been made. When it was necessary to turn round a ship in a hurry it might be more expensive than under .'normal conditions. Mr. W. A. Sheat (National, Patea) said the question was whether all who contributed to the profits should share in them. He believed that many of those who were classed as non-unionists would belong to the Waterside Workers' Union if it were not closed. "I think it will be a revelation to the people that waterside workers over and above the high rates and overtime' earned under awards have received during a period of five years the sum of £660,000 in additional payments under the bonus system," added Mr. Sheat. "I take the view that if members of the Watersiders' Union ase not willing to share these profits with the others who contributed to them they should not be allowed to distribute them among themselves. They should in some way or other be forced to hand them back' to the people at large/ THE INDIVIDUAL'S SHARE. Mr. F. Hackett (Government, Grey Lynn)- said that the £660,000 distributed among about 7000 men in five years amounted to under £20 a year a man, and that profit had been earned during the most abnormal shipping period ' the Dominion had ever known. Many of the "seagulls," because of the times when they worked, received overtime rates. Some thousands of individuals had worked as casuals on the wharves, and another factor making it difficult to distribute a.bonus to non-unionists, after a lapse of time, was that some of those who had worked on the wharves were also crews of foreign ships. Mr. Hackett, who indicated that he was opposed to the recommendation by the committee, said he felt that the petitioners had not explored all possible channels before approaching the House. He was certain the Waterside Workers' Union and the Minister of Labour would be prepared to meet a deputation of bona fide non-unionists from the wharves to discuss the matter thoroughly. He was certain that the waterside workers did not wish to debar bona fide "sea-gulls." They objected .sharing with men earning big salaries elsewhere. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Holland) said the Waterfront Control Commission had • introduced a system of payment by results; it estimated the cost of a job and said that if the men could do it quicker there would be profits in whk-h they would share, and in five years a.profit of £660,000 had been earned. Mr. W. M. C. Denham (Government, Invercargill): And you object to it. Mr. Holland said that on the contrary he was applauding it. There had not been sufficient men within the union ranks to handle all the cargo that had been offering, and the non-unionists who had helped by working at night and on holidays to turn the ships round had contributed to the results achieved. It was right; therefore, that those who contributed to the production of profit should enjoy a share of it, irrespective of their main occupations. He was glad the profit had been earned, and he was now concerned to see that it was distributed equitably. The Opposition was keen to see the rights of the working people preserved, and if it had not been for the Opposition members of the committee the recommendation would not have been jnade. The Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. I O'Brien) said it was not as easy to distribute the profit as the Leader of the Opposition had suggested. The! (making of the profit had meant a step- j ping-up in effort, and it had to be re-' cognised that some of those who came in to assist the unionists would not be as efficient. He claimed that the unionists had a right to share in the profit earned by those working in other occupations if they desired to share in •the profits earned by the cargo handling. Mr. Bodkin said the Labour members of the Committee had been op-

posed to the recommendation, and every Labour member who had spoken in the House was opposed to the "seagull" getting his dues. "We find them on the side of the big battalion, fighting J!or the powerful union and asking the Government to permit this select body of workers to exploit the rest of the workers in sharing these profits," he said. "Immediately a union is permitted to become a closed union it becomes a vested interest. It was not closed at the instance of the employers or the public; it was closed to afford a measure of protection to those individuals who were members of the union." The Minister of Marine had suggested that men who had helped on the wharf at a time of national crisis might be earning up to £5 a week in addition to their wharf earnings and that they should share that orofit with the watersiders. He had never heard a more absurd suggestion. The watersider did not bring his earnings into the pool; he received wages in proportion to the hours worked, and the bonus was a dividend distributed on an hourly basis.. To distribute the bonus to unionists only was preposterous and exploitation of the worst kind. Mr. O'Brien interjected that the whole trend of his speech was that a man should get all the profit to which he was entitled. The Minister of Internal Affairs (Mr. Parry) said the Waterside Workers' Union.. was not the only closed organisation. Nobody, for instance, could gain admittance to the Law Society or take part in any brief if he had no legal training. The men who went on to the wharf from time to time from various other occupations were not as efficient as those unionists who had become skilled by experience, and had not played the same part in expediting the turninground of ships. Profits should be shared equally among those members of the organisation who had done the work, and he felt that that practice should be applied to workers in other industries after reasonable interest on capital invested and other costs had been allowed. Mr. W..S. Goosman (National, Waikato) said the criticism was not^an attack by the National Party on the watersiders. The Opposition welcomed the opportunity the waterside workers had had to perform a good job and make a profit. In all other jobs no man was allowed to work unless he vvas a unionist, but with' the Waterside Workers' Union there was a special preference. Waterside unionists had the preference for what work was offering, while others had to stand by until there was too much work for the unionists to handle and then they had the crumbs from the rich man's table. A Government advocating socialism and equality now stood, in the present case, for exploitation and monopoly. * "IN A NEW GARMENT." Mr. Denham remarked that he had never before heard Opposition speakers say that all -the profits should go to the workers. They had come out in a new garment which did not tone with their political past. ■ He could not imagine them suggesting that all the freezing works' employees should share in the large profits of those concerns. He had heard the Leader of the Opposition for years deploring that the watersiders were getting 10s an hour. Watersiders and coal miners had been called slackers by the Opposition. Mr. P. Carr (Government, Auckland West) congratulated the Leader of the Opposition that at last he had awakened to. the fact that the people who created wealth should get it. However, he feared that the Opposition idea was to set one section of workers against another, < and to encourage class warfare. Mr. A. E. Armstrong (Government, Napier) commended the present system of contract labour and contrasted it with the old method under which, he said, the stevedores had the monopoly of the work; and there was an auction block, only a few men being picked out for a job from the hundreds who attended the labour call. The shipping companies did not favour adding the casuals to the regular staffs, and they objected to the Watersiders' Union being thrown open. - Mr. W. T. Anderton (Government, Eden) suggested that the whole question was so complicated that all the profits involved would be used up in payment of clerical staffs if any attempt was made to unravel it. LOST-TIME COMPENSATIONS; Mr. Coleman, in reply, said that some time ago the bonus had been paid to all workers on the wharves, but it was found that in many instances the amounts were very small and* the amount of clerical work terrific. The Waterfront Commission then decided to pay the bonus to the sub-contractors, that was the union, and the money went to the men who worked, in the industry for a living. Many of the "seagulls," were not men who earned their living on the waterfront. The bonus was paid to the ordinary Waterside worker and it reimbursed him for the time lost on the wharf. Admittedly not much time was lost on the wharves at Auckland and Wellington, but in other ports there was a considerable amount of time lost. The "seagull" had no lost time as far as work oh the wharf was concerned for it was not his calling.