WATERSIDE WORKERS' DISPUTE

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 294, 18 October 1922, Page 14

WATERSIDE WORKERS' DISPUTE

Court to Undft Work of Experts

THE AECaffIENT AIiOUT WAGES.

From the point where-"our report finished in-'tysE week's Worker, Mr. J. Roberts, in his statement to the Arbitration Court, proceeded: — The counter-proposals submitted are, as far as tiie conditions of employment are concerned, drafted on the lines of the present . industrial agreement. There are, however, certain minor alterations which we are asking the Court to Include in the award, the majority of which are at the present time in actual operation by decisions of the Local and National Disputes CoimaUtees.- In the-draft of the counter-proposals, I desire .to draw the attention of the. Court to the fact that it was necessary to make many alterations- owing to the present agreement covering 2T Unions and branches, and the counter-propo-sals were intended to y cover ■individual Unions only. It was necessary also to alter the draft to meet the requirements of the Court, as tlie parties may undertake to carry out certain proposals by Industrial- agreement, which the Court may not Include in the award, unless such undertakings had been previously agreed to by the parties in conference; and as the employers definitely refused .to meet us in conference, these industrial undertakings have not therefore- been included.

I now desire !.o- refer you to the present industrial agreement. In it you have the most complete log covering wages and conditions of employment affeciing any industry or section of workers in New Zealand. Thi3 agreement has been laboriously built up, and is based on the sum total of human experience of waterside labour in New Zealand. The various clauses contained thcrfcin were agreed to by the employers at previous conferences, and some which were. granted by awards of the Court in years past have been amended to suit the requirements or the industry,

I ■• . HOW THE AGREEMENT WAS !., EVOLVED. ■In 1917 a-coaf-erence of the representatives of {he -parties to -this-dis-pute met in Wellington. -Tiie- employers -brought over 60 experts from all lover New Zealand to that conference; ! the waterside workers brought 27 \ from the various ports, and after some •two weeks' general discussion-on the claims and counter-claims, it was I agreed, with a view to obtaining■jnore [direct expert opinion on the different classes o£ work, to appoint three com-roitteess-rYlz.. a Cargo Committee, a Coal Committee; and a General Committee. These Committees /were sitting for several days., usually from 10 to "12 hours each day, and brought down their reports to the Conference. The overwhelming majority of the clauses ■ were unanimously agreed to and submitted to the conference tor ratification. Matters on which* the committees could not agree were either agreed to by the conference or were referred" back, but these were comparatively few in number. The whole of the clauses referred to the General Committee, of which I was a were agreed upon by that Committee, and are, with a few minor' alterations, contained in th& present agreement. The main issues concernig coal and cargo were also agreed to in committee, and-'-were-afterwards ratified by the conference.'Matters affecting gear .appliances, weight and constitution of sliugs were referred to special committees, and their, decisions were, after being submitted to the conference, .embodied in the 1917 agreement. The question s which I now desire to ask the Cdurt is: Is it reasonable that you should .-ibe-. asked to radically alter the working conditions and conditions of employment generally which hare been amanimously agreed upon at previous conferences by ■experts who were practical men on all matters connected with waterside work? .. In this connection, I woiiljl refer the Court tp & judgment given by His Honour Justice Sim in the.: Gisborne . dispute/ 'which: has often been quoted by employers:.—

"Where an industry has .been before the Court tyro or three times, and its conditions investigated, 'the last award should be treated as finally settling tiiese conditions, and.any alteration can only be made :oa clear and definite pifbf that there been a change in circunistano&i 'Bince that award was made.

"These cireuinatanoes as applying: generally to all tho Industries (with perhaps one or two exceptions) in conneotion with iwMcli tlie'Court ha* made t*o or successive awarde."*-«ook of Yjdl. 10, page 192, Gisborne Painters.

. &W)%y§h fcH* 3u<2aroent states

definitely "awards of the Court," I am of"the opinion that-;it even has a. more direct bearing where the conditions of employment, gear, and appliances to be used were decided by a committee of experts. UNREASONABLE EMPLOYERS. Regarding the attitude taken up by the employers in connection with this dispute, the waterside 'workers first asked for a conference. This was refused, and the employers cited us before the Council of Concilation. At the first meetng in Wellington the representatives of the waterside workers did their utmost to arrive at an agreement on several of the clauses. The employers, on the other hand, were even reluctant to discuss, either their own claims or the counter-pro-posals; it seemed indeed "that they could only repeat the words "to the Court" on all clauses of importance, The waterside workers' representatives suggested that a conference be held to decide all matters in dispute regarding the conditions of employment, and that the question of wages be referred to the Court. This offer was promptly turned down by the employers' representatives. Again, at the Auckland sitting, a suggestion was made by the waterside workers' representatives that aDpminion Council of Conciliation be held to discuss the conditions of employment, and matters which could not be agreed upon, as well as the question of wages, he referred to the Court, with a view to embodying the whole in a Dominion award. This was referred to the principals of the shipping industry at Wellington, but was also turned down. The whole of the meetings of Councils of Conciliation were a farce, as the employers' assessors were acting under instructions from Wellington, and could not agree even to matters affecting local conditions. There is but one reason why the employers refused that conference—viz., • they could not very well refuse to allow conditions of employment to stand which were voluntarily conceded a few years back. It will therefore be seen that in this dispute the employers have not shown the least spirit of conciliation; if they had done so. the Court would probably not now be burdened with the huge mass of detail and evidence which it has to consider. Mr. Smith, in his, opening statement, referred to something published in the "N.Z. Transport Worker," which prevented the employers from meeting us in conference. He has not, however, put the matter published into the Court; we invite him to do so. However, we must take this assertion like many others contained in his opening statement, as an attempt to pre-, jutlice our case by inference. j RATES OF PAY. | Like unto all industrial disputes, i this clause, which provides for the rates of remuneration of the workera and on which the vital necessities of life depend, is the most important. 1 do not intend to enter into the cost of living argument ; on this question, "'as'the"''Court-has recently made extensive investigations regarding that matter, and anything which I can say cannot affect the decision already made by the Court on that issue. I may say, however, that I am in agreement with Mr. Smith in his statement that wages should not be based on the cost of living, or the subsistence standard, according to the rise and fall ia the price of commodities. Needless to say that we disagree on the basis on which wages should be fixed. Mr. Smith argues that wages should be based on the prosperity of the Industry and on the law of supply and demand. In other words, he argues : that if an industry, through any rea- : son whatever, is not prosperous and paying dividends, the standard of living of the workers operating that industry should be lowered. As the workers are but a part of the: machinery of production, one may as well argue that when an industry is not prosperous the best system of management would be to reduce the standard of the efficiency of the machine. This method of ascertaining the wages basis is simply an argument in favour of race suicide, or at best the replacing of the; present population with an inferor type* both physically and mentally. It is now an ascertained fact that the increase or decrease in population depends to a great extent on the food supply, and in all industrial countries the food supply of the workers depends upon the purchasing power of the wages earned. It follows then that, if Wages are reduced below the level that will purchase food, race suicide or at best the production of an inferior type of worker will be the result. I think it will be admitted by economists of all schools that, when an Industry cannot pay such wages as will enable the workers to. maintain a'-fair standard of living-, it would be better for-, tho nation and 4ho people who operated that industry, if it tfeni out of existence. On the question of wages being detfdedi by the law .of supplf find ■ ( --„________

demand, such a system, has ail the fautt-3 already and, inaddition,: it would Increase .the present industrial unre3t tenfold. The employers would naturally aim to reduce wages during periods of unemployment and industrial depression and similarly so the workers would combine to raise wages during times when the labour market was brisk. Such a process would not be conducive either to the stabilisation of industry, the standard of living or efficiency in production.

WAGES MUST ACCORD WITH STANDARD OF LIVING. The standard of living is, the only method on which wages can be satisfactorily based. If the machinery of production must have a standard, then It must follow that the people who operate the machinery must have a standard of living that will enable them to keep pace with tie machine. Apart from the foregoing, I think that it is now generally conceded that, when a worker devotes all his working time and the energies of brain and muscle to any industry or to the services of society in any useful capacity, such, worker should receive In return at least sufficient to maintain a fair standard of living. The standard of living does not merely mean a subsistence wage for the worker and his dependants: it means more than the fodder basis. In fixing such a wage, a'certain standard of comfort, leisure, recreation, education for his children, and all things necessary to allow reasonable opportunities for the worker and his-family to become useful and worthy citizens, must be taken intc consderatlon. To the worker at least must be conceded the same consideraton as that given to the machine he operates—viz., sufficient care and attention to ensure efficiency and sufficient for the reproduction of the energy expended from day to day in production. From the modern business standard, it is considered economically prudent to allow a certain amount for a depreciation fund on machine plant each year according to value, and the estimated useful life of the machine,. and, in a well-man-aged business, this depreciation fund will be large enough to replace the old machine by a new one and gentrally more efficient, when the old machine is worn out. What of the workers who operate these machines? They also wear out, and even the employers must agree that they do reproduce their kind and supply them with a worker at least as good physically and .generally speaking, more intelligent, as units in wealth production. WAGES AND SOCIAL PROGRESS. The process of evolution in proproduction demands that there shall be at least a corresponding increase" in intelligence in the workers as there is improvement in machinery, otherwise progress would be Impossible. But what of the depreciation in the physical and mental energy of the actual workers? Where is the depreciation fund? Must We assume that, after the worker devotes his whole life to useful industrial production and service"to the community old age or impaired health shall sentence him to pauperism? If wages are based on the upward or downward movement in -the price of commodities, on the prosperity of industries, or on the law of supply and. demand of the workers' only commodity—labour power—lt is obvious that this important factor in the economic life of the worker will be neglected, and unless we arrive at the brutal conclusion that when the workers, after yeai'3 of toil, become worn out and therefore unsuited to carry on as units of production, they are to be killed off or buried or scrapped with the old machines they have operated, provision must be made in the fixing of wages for Industrial incapacitation through impaired health or old age. In reply to this, the employers will say that it is the duty of the State to look after the sick and the old. True, it is tho duty of the State to provide for the economic requirements of the people (professional or manual workers) employed in State-controlled industries and services, but private enterprise surely has the same responsibilities to its worn-out, injured or sick workers. It is both rational and logical to demand that the maintenance of the worker during his industrial service; in sickness and during old age, should be the first charge'on industry. The employers evidently deny any responsibility for sickness and old age, as they desire to hand over to the State those workers who have given lifelong service, also those with impaired health, as indigent paupers to be.cared for by the community. : NATION'S ETHICAL LIFE. It is also generally conceded that there are three main principles by which we can judge the. social ana ethical standards of a nation: — __, 1, Tho manner in which the nation cares for the' mental, physical, educational and vocational welfare and braining of its young folic. 2. The care and welfare of the

womenfolk—the mothers of the race. 3. The care taken of the old, people who have rendered useful social service.. ~' ".,.•;.-■.■.■ . I submit, therefore, that in the fixing of wages', apart from the , amount necessary to keep the worker supplied with the requirements which will- enable him to be an efficient unit of production and with a supply of food, clothing and shelter for his dependants, a reasonable yum must be set down for the care and welfare of the mother, the mental and physical welfare, and' the educational and vocational training of the young, and for impaired health and old agc+; in short, a standard of living , . I know the ■Court has not the necessary data by which it can ascertain v/ith any degree of accuracy what a fair ctandard of, living is,, but an effort should be made to provide the Court with that necessary data, as I am of the opinion that the fixing of wages based on a reasonable standard of comfort is the only means, under the present social system, by which reasonable assurance of industrial peace and efficiency can be obtained.