THE WATERFRONT COMBINE

Evening Star, Issue 17542, 23 December 1920, Page 3

THE WATERFRONT COMBINE

HAS SCHEME BEEN ANALYSED? In reading the report of the discussion which took place at the meeting of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce (writes the New Zealand Welfare League), we have been disappointed to find that instead of closely analysing the proposed New Zealand Co-operative Stevedoring Association scheme from the standpoint of its genesis, its real meaning and import, and its probable effects, if adopted, on trade and commerce generally, the members made remarks upon it almost as if it was an abstract, question for general debate. One or two speakers expressed views of the Welfare League which on reflection can* be seen to be ridiculous. - Because _ the league has criticised the scheme it is charged with being inconsistent. Why? These gentlemen, in order to be fair, should have recognised that the league has always supported the policy of employers and workers coming together, conferring and genuinely cotoperating on matters of mutual interest; but it has at the same time opposed the secrecv of private conferences dealing with matters which seriously affect. othe» than the interests of the parties represented in these conferences. Further, the league, whilst supporting genuine co-operation, has never been so foolish as to bind itself to support every scheme that is labelled co-operation, whether it is genuinely so or not. Common sense will indicate that there is either contradictory or inconsistent in this attitude of the league. In the present instance the league has not objected to _ the shipping companies and the _ waterside workers’ representatives meeting in conference, but merely to the entire secrecy of the proceedings. The league is not criticising the scheme which urn P üb^shed > and the accuracy of which _ is not denied, because it is cobut because we are not able to see that it is genuine co-operation. —Suggested Lines of Inquiry.— The Wellington Chamber of Commerce avmg decided to “ set up a committee to watch the movement and report as considered necessary,’’ we desire respectfully to suggest that this -committee might meet forthwith and go fully into these questions relating to this proposed scheme: 1. Would a combination on the lines suggested detrimentally or helpfully affect the harbor boards, the small shipping companies, the existing stevedores the consignees of goods, the general public? ' b 2. Is it a- genuine form of co-operation tor the shipping companies to enter into a mode of partnership with the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation whilst the leaders of that body declare that their purpose is to secure full control of the industry, and before they have given any guarantee that- they will not- use their representative authority to effect such, an end? 5. Is the scheme one of payment on results or will that principle be'governed by what is meant bv “current rates”? 4. Is the scheme in practice likely to operate in the direction of giving preference of service to the association emplojeis o\er those not in the association, which might materially affect the small shipowners and the harbor boards employing labor ? 5. Is the hiring and purchasing of gear, interest, insurance, and nliotmcntof profits likely to entail any increase in charges for the handling of goods? 6. Will the payment of special despatch rates for speedy work, if coupled with payment of demurrage rates lower than the agreement in case of slow work, be likely to minimise or accentuate disputes and possible conflict? 7. Is the scheme likelv to simplify and give more direct control of the administration of' the waterside industry? W e think these will he recognised as proper questions for investigation. Important:- points that are not dealt with in the “draft” published are; L Will there be any guarantee given against recurring stoppages of work? 2. To what extent are the parties prepared to allow the full_schemo and its working to be subject to public review?