Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, APRIL 23rd, 1914. WHARF LABORERS’ PAY.

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 April 1914, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, APRIL 23rd, 1914. WHARF LABORERS’ PAY.

lue new award by the Australian Arbitration Court governing the rates of pay to waterside workers at the ports of the Commonwealth has created something akin to a sensation in shipping circles, who view with alarm the increase in pay which has been bestowed upon the men. The wage fixed is Is 9d per hour, a figure which is 4d in excess of the rate ruling in New Zealand.. But in making this award, the Court was really taking info consideration a problem which also obtrudes itself in this Dominion and which has become more accentuated since the strike. We refer to the waste of labor on (he wharves —i.e, the surplus labor. Wharf work is mostly ' casual and the difficulty which is ever present is the providing

of a sufficient wage—a living wage-—so as to cover periods of dullness as well as in times of abnormal trade activity. When hearing tho case, .Mr. .Justice Higgins stated that he wauled lo provide a reasonable wage and at the same time protect the employers from becoming a benevolent society. This drew the remark from the Hon, W. M. Hughe' (ex-Federal Attorney^leneral), who appeared for the waterside workers, that ‘ we should direel our attention lo the number necessary tor a normal busy day (o do the work of (lie 1 port. Having done that/ we should

enquire what labour is available in the union. If it be less than a fair margin of that number, then other persons should not be allowed to come in, excepting in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as a committee representing both sides might provide. The way the thing is done now invites chaos. In one night 56 men came into one union. I have seen in my own organisation 20 men get on the platform, utter strangers to everyone in the union except men who proposed and seconded them. There was no enquiry whether they were wanted or not. They displaced others, and so

tho thing went on. If we can arrive at some conclusion about numbers and impose some fair restriction upon membership of our unions, we shall have some dear position.’’ This contention immediately raised the objection that it would result in making Labour a close corporation and this assertion was elaborated in forcible terms to the Court by Mr. Storey, who appeared on behalf of certain steamship owners. Mr. Justice Higgins, however, coincided with the views expressed by Mr. Hughes. Reverting to a suggestion that the companies would be prepared to employ permanently 800 men at Sydney at a weekly wage of 52/6, his Honor tersely remarked; “You have to support men by whose assistance you from time to time keep the industry going. You will employ as permanents the very pick of the men at 52/6 per week, whereas for the pick of the men a bigger wage should be necessary. ’’ This, of course, would bring about continuity of employment, but the defect still remains that in unusually busy periods casuals would have to be employed and to overcome this seems an impossibility. The least that can be done to alleviate the condition of the workers is to make the pay on such a basis that’ a reasonable period ol employment weekly would yield a living wage. Of course, permanent employment would be largely offered and, if adopted, would no doubt operate towards preventing the occurrence of vexatious strikes which, especially in Australia, frequently disorganise the transport services.