The Grey River Argus MONDAY, May 19, 1947. THE WATERSIDE CONTRETEMPS

Grey River Argus, 19 May 1947, Page 4

The Grey River Argus MONDAY, May 19, 1947. THE WATERSIDE CONTRETEMPS

JT is unfortunate that the negotiations regarding a new commission to regulate operations on the waterfront should have issued, not in agreement, but in a dispute, which has- developed rather a propagandist character. There may have, been temperamental complications, but the fact remains that the Minister of Labour simply submitted to the Union representatives the views of the Government on the subject, and these could have been either accepted or not without making the matter one of mere personalities. That the Union representatives did not withstand temptation to do this became evident when a branch publicly mooted a suggestion of passing a vote of noconfidence, and when the accompanying publicity drew a Ministerial reply, the Union’s national spokesmen, by way of an answer, dwelt more upon their dignity than upon the actual issue. Their earlier rejection of the Government’s view was made in a spirit of scepticism, which induced the Minister to discontinue the interview, from the belief, no doubt, that in the circumstances there was no prospect of agreement, The Union leaders have certainly pointed out that they sought to have a commission of a character equivalent to workers’ control of I he industry, with a Government representative of the commission, whereas the Prime Minister has definitely ruled out a syndicalist policy of that nature. It might be conceded that the shipping companies might come to an agreement with the workers providing that the latter should conduct the industry, which contract would not, of course, constitute syndical control of it. At anyrate, the President, Mr Barnes, has now stated that unless the Governmenl agrees to a commission according the workers equal representation with the State, the Executive will recommend that the Union negotiate with the employers as to pay and conditions. It is also conceivable, as remarked, that such a method might result in the Union’s idea being realised, but, if it were, the employers naturally would require the Union to do the job at a cost the economy of which could in advance be ascertained. making the thing a contract. Such ai; arrangement might not be anywise inconsistent with the. attitude of the. Government, whereas a commission on which, according to the Minister, the Union leaders wished for a majority could not apparently be obligated to keep to such a costs level, as to make the proposition economical. The Union spokesman declares that the Government is adverse to workers’ control of any industry, wherefore it has now been advised that negotia tions will be transferred to the employers unless the. Union has equal representation with the Government on a commission consistent with all-in contracting proposed by the Government. No fault need be found with the Union leaders for explaining their stand on the matter, even if it has been modified from that for a majority to that for equality on a commission. The question for the Government must naturally be as to where the employers are to stand. To exclude them completely from, the controlling body would, as remarked, persuade them at least to ascertain how they would be affected, and were they to judge the proposition a losing one for themselves, no industry might remain to function under any commission. It scarcely could have been anticipated that the Government would regard workers’ control as doing away with the employers’ right to negotiate in any way upon the costs of the industry. The Government could hardly expect that the shipping would itself remain available in such circumstances. If therefore the regard which it must maintain for this aspect were described as rendering the contracting plan not a. genuine one. it could only be concluded that the Union leaders would, on their part, be denied by the employers to have a genuine contracting plan in the respect that it would amount to only a leonine contract, like that made by employers when they have a stir plus of labour from which to choose, and can largely dictate

their own terms. It may be that a way will be found to resume negotiations, for the Government has at heart the welfare of the workers no less tli/in of the industry and the community. To go back to bargaining on- the old

basis may,, on the other hand, be the quickest way out, although it also might prove a case where a ladder enabling a degree of workers’ control has been kicked from under.