WATERFRONT WAGES

Evening Star, Issue 18141, 4 December 1922, Page 10

WATERFRONT WAGES

CALCULATION OF EARNINGS. CRITICISM ByliE. ROBERTS. ' In the course of a lengthy statement to a Wellington ‘Times' reporter last week respecting the new waterside workers’ award, Mr J. Roberts (secretary of the Now Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation) criticised tho unsound calculations aa to earnings made by tho employers. “The secretary of the New Zealand! Employers’ Federation states (he said) that the waterside workers ca.n earn £4 11s 7d per week working on an average of 58.8 hours. I assure him that he can easily end this controversy, and further, that wo will not grumble for another moment about the award, if ho will, on behalf of the shipowners, guarantee that weekly wage. I know I shall bo mot with | tho usual reply that under the casual labor system it is impossible, etc., etc. Will Mr Bishop, who is so cocksure that the waterside workers can find employment on an average 38.8 hours per week, go to the shipowners and get from them an agreement to the effect that they will guarantee a 38.8 hour week to all men required to efficiently carry on tho work at all ports? He can average the basis on one, three, six, or twelve months, as he pleases, I do not wash to include in this guarantee what is called the ‘fringe’ or the very casual. I want him to include only the average waterside worker who is seeking work from day to day on tho wharves of Now Zealand. It, as Air Bishop says, tho waterside workers work these hours, there is no reason why this guarantee should not be given. _ I await his reply,' and assure him that if it is in the affirmative it will end most, if not nil, of tho complaints concerning tho recent judgment of tho court. RATES OF PAY. “ The figures submitted by tho employers regarding waterfront wages were, as one would naturally expect, confined to the highest paid men. However, when the wages returns per week were analysed and dealt with on a monthly moving average basis, it was found that for the past year, after omitting tho very casual men, 'the following wages per week have been earned; “Fur Auckland during tho six months period ended February, 1922, the total wage for 1,038 men for the actual weeks worked was £3 5s 5d per week, and'on a twenty-sis weeks’ basis £2 los lOd per week. The Auckland central pay office did not give figures ior tho slack periods during the winter months. “At Wellington the wages for 1,174 men (omitting the* Harbor Board employees) far twelve months ended August, 1922, were £5 14s 6d. For Harbor Board employees for the same period tbe amount earned is much less, due to these men no® being employed at coal or freezer work, fur which higher rates arc paid. “At Dunedin for the busy period, December 15. 1921, to June 1-1, 1922, 192 highest-paid men earned £3 6s 8d per week, but if wo divide the total number of men employed into the actual wages paid the average pier man is less than £5 5s 6d per week.

“New Biymuuth. sixty-five highest-paid nii’n earned £j 11s 9d per week, but if all the men employed are included the average per week falls to £5 Is 7d. “Port Chalmers, highest-paid men averaged £2l4s lid per week for the same period; 220 men actually working at that port averaged £2 7s 7d per week. “Lyttelton, 586 men, during the busy period, ending Alay 1. 1923, earned £4 7s Bd, but if the 600 men who are actually employed is included Lho weekly average falls to £3 9s 4d.

“ Tima.ru, average weekly wage for the 100 highest-paid men was £2 ibs 7d per man. There are tiny men who work at that port who earn Jc.-.s. “ Westport, average Tor 1921. seventy-two highest-paid men, was £i> 5a 9d per week. •‘The foregoing is for the highest paid ports, and tlio wages include all time work ordinary time, overtime, special time, meal hours, Sunday and holiday work—and in most eases the results are obtained from the figures supplied by the employers. This bears out my contention that the total wage earned per week on the waterfronts is Jess than £5 7s 6d per week."