CONTRACT OR DAY LABOUR?

Evening Star, Issue 22636, 30 April 1937, Page 15

CONTRACT OR DAY LABOUR?

WORK BY LOCAL BODIES DISCUSSION BY HARBOUR BOARD TENDERS GALLED FOR NEW BUILDING Day labour v. contract labour was argued at length by the .Harbour Board last nignt. when the erection ot a storage shed at Victoria wharf was discussed. The experience of the City Council in the construction of the Anzac Avenue bridge by day labour was quoted as an argument against the board undertaking the construction, and it was finally decided that tenders should bo called.

The engineer submitted a plan and estimate of the proposed cargo shed occupying the open space between “ T " and “ U ” sheds, provision for which had been made in the current year’s estimates. The sub-committee appointed by the Standing Committee reported that the shed was necessary. It approved of the plans, subject to the door being made sufficiently strong to carry rough cargo, the doors being made wider to work vessels at the berth and a platform being built for the loading of cargo on vehicles. Mr F. E. Tyson: Is the shed to b® built by the board? The Chairman (Mr J. B. Waters); Yes. It is of wood and iron, and the construction could be carried out quit© well by the board. “ I don’t agree with you,” was Mr Tyson’s opinion. Mr W. Begg considered that tenders should be called. At the same time, tire board should prepare an estimate of the cost, and if the estimate was anywhere' near the lowest tender the board should decide the method by which the work was to be carried out. Mr Begg moved, and Mr Tyson seconded, that tenders be called. Mr J. W. Munro, M.P., said that the motion was only holding up the work, as all the sheds erected in the past had been built by the board’s employees. “ Very expensive work, too,” commented Mr Begg. Mr Munro: That is a matter of opinion. We have some very fine sheds, and I cannot see any reason for the proposal. Mr R. Harrison said it appeared silly to him that the engineer was expected to draw up an estimate and that other firms should be asked to provide tenders. That was a waste of everybody’s time. The board should have faith in its engineer that he would draw up reasonable estimates with reasonable conditions. He was convinced that the board could do the work. The Chairman said the engineer was of opinion that he could use a considerable amount of the timber from the Birch street demolition for the flooring of the shed. For that reason it was highly probable that the board could carry out the work more cheaply than a contractor. “ I am firmly convinced that the work cannot be carried out by the hoard as economically or as expeditiously as if the contract was let,” said Mr Tyson. Mr D. F. H. Sharpe said that this was not a concrete job. Although the board might get a good estimate from the engineer, this was an iron shed, a type of work which should be undertaken solely by building contractors. He always remembered that the board had called for tenders for the construction of the Ravensbourne wharf, which was a huge saving to the board. Mr A. Campbell, M.P., said the board could do its own work. It should have sufficient confidence in the engineer to do the job. The motion was a challenge to the board’s employees, who could be called to account if their work was slipshod. It was pointed out by Mr R. Duncan that the motion did not commit the board to do the work by contract. Mr J. H. Duncan expressed the opinion that the engineer would not be aggrieved if the contract w r ere let, as the board’s staff had its hands full with wharf reconstruction work. Mr D. Copland reminded the board of its earlier recognition that the work would bo carried out by its employees. But the employees were fully engaged, and the work should bo let by contract. The work had to be done by men, and it did not matter whether it was the board’s or the contractor’s labour, so long as the building was properly supervised and correctly erected. The present time was very opportune for the letting of contracts by day labour, said Mr R. S. Thompson. He believed that a considerable _ saving would have ben made to the citizens if tenders were called for the construction of the Anzac Avenue bridge. The Chairman: You will remember that the board’s contribution to that work is limited. Mr Thompson: I recognise that the board is protected, but the cost of the bridge is being borne by the city ratepayers. “ You don’t know what you are talking about,” retorted Mr J. W. Munro, M.P., who is also chairman of the City Council’s Works Committee. “ You have been reading a few letters in the newspapers.” The motion was carried, Messrs Harrison, Scollay, Munro, and Campbell voting against it. A‘ suggestion during the discussion that the board might not accept any of the tenders above the engineer’s estimate or near it was dispelled by the chairman’s answer to a question by Mr J. H. Duncan. ‘‘ Surely we are uot calling for tenders to check our engineer? ” asked Mr Duncan. ” That would be wrong.” “ Certainly,” agreed the Chairman. Consequent on this decision, the board rescinded a previous resolution authorising the engineer to call for tenders for the roof principals.