Conditions on the New Zealand Waterfront

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 295, 25 October 1922, Page 9

Conditions on the New Zealand Waterfront

Continuing his argument with respect to wages before the Arbitraton Court, Mr. J. Roberts, Secretary N.Z. Waterside Workers' Federation, said:

THE BASIC WAGE.

It would seem from the employers' claims that, they desire the. Court to fix the basic wage on the. number of hours worked, ordinary time. They have, therefore, suggested the basic wage of general labourers at 1/7, plus 33d. per hour on the basis of a 44-hour week. At the -proposed rate (bonus inc'lided), if the waterside worker was employed for 44 hours a week he would'receive £4/3/5. As this amount 13 slightly under the basic wage agreed on by the Court, then the. employers should first of all guarantee a 41-hoiir week to the men they employ. But as they have not made such guarantee,' and as the ordinary waterside worker is not employed for 44 hours per week, some basis must be found on which a wage shall be fixed ivhich will maintain a fair standard of living. The questions, then, which the Court.must determine first of all are: 1. The number of hours which the ordinary waterside v/orker, devotes his whole time to the industry, is employed. " 2. Whtber or not all or any of the amount earned during overtime hours shall he included ia tlie living wage. 3. The rate per hour to be paid to tiie waterside workers to enable them to maintain a fair standard of living on. the number of hours worked.

ACTUAL HOURS. WORKED.

What, then, is the number of hours v/orked on the average In the five

main ports of New Zealand? What i.5 the nr.mber of hours worked in

the eight intermediate ports? and what U the number of hours worked per week in the sma-ller ports? The employers" opening statement to the Court explained that during the year elided August 4, 1920, 968 waterside workers earned on the average for ordinary and overtime work £4/17/10 pei , wetk at the Port of Weilingfcfti. There were, during the same period, 210') financial members in the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union, and if we allow that 600 of these men were nr>t constantly seeking work, that will

leave 2.100 who were seeking work, and employed according to the usual luethod under the casual labour sys-

t-r.n. ( J£S averaged 38.8 hours per week.. "Wivat war* the average of the

remaining 1,032? For the year ended August 8. 1921, 1,423 men earned an average of £4/19/5 per week, but the number ol homsi worked per week is

not stated. There were 2,900 financial members of the Union during the same period. Allowing 600 to be men Avho were not constantly seeking work,

t'uere were 2,300 men who were; what was the average per week earned by the other 877? The employers have selected the two busiest years in the history of waterfront labour to averago the working time of waterside workers, and the fact must be taken inco consideration also that the agreements arrived at in 1920 and 1921 were based on the earning capacity of tho workers under the then •existing condition!?. Since that time the earning capacity has fallen off by a considerable amount.

KITES SHOULD COMPLY YVITH 5 QR3L4JL COSMTIOK S.

I think it is unnecessary for mc to argue that the standard of living wage should be fixed over a normal period, and I do not think that the years 1919----1920, or the first half of 1921, can be claimed to. be normal periods, as the records for imports and exports taken tto:n llie N.Z. Year Book will show. In Ifil6 the value of imports was ■£25,339.£53; 1917, £20,919,265;' 1918, £2t,231, 007; 1919, '£30,671,698; and [192-X £01,595,828. It may be argued, that the -increase in the value of the Imports 1 £19-19*20, was due to the incrsase in prices. To some extent this Is true, but, as the New Zealand Year Book points out, the quantity of goods imported increased considerably. If v. r e take the value of. the exports for the sarae period they were: 1916, £33,285.937; 1917, £31,587,547; 1918, £23.51G,185; 1919, £-53,970,075; and 1920, £ 46,44!..,9!6. The figures for ;1921 are not available, but we know ftat the first half of that year was exceptionally busy on all the waterfroats of New Zealand.

Hfil'S IX "jRELATION" TO TRICES*

If I may here be permitted to make a comparison between the value of the Imports and exports for the' year .1920 aj ul the animal wages bill for waters We -workers during; the same period, Ii; may be of servce to the Court in the amount which the fr agss pjjia t0 wa terside workers iatr &a,?o the prices of commodities extoi'ted and used in .Nevy- Zealand,. "Biltting the cargo handled in coas£-

wise trade, produced and used in th,a Dominion, the value of the imports and exports for the year 1920 was £108,037,774. The entire wages bill; for waterside workers during the same period was about £1,000,000. If we allow one-third of the wages as being paid for handling commodities produced and consumed in New Zealand (which is a very moderate estimate when the handling of such bulky cargoes as foodstuffs, grain, coal, fodder, and building; material is taken into consideration), it will reduce the wages bill considerably for the purposes of comparison with the value of imports and exports.

IfOT 80. HOURS'- WORE A WEEK.

It will be seen from the foregoing that the wages cannot be fixed on the number of hours worked per week for the years ; 1919-1920. They were not normal years, and even then for the five main ports and eight intermediate ports the average number'of hours worked ordinary and overtime for these two. years was under 33 f per week for all men who were seeking work constantly, and who. were, according to the-employers' statements, necessary to carry on the industry. From data collected by the Waterside Workers' Federation since 1917, and from the wages list supplied by the employers, 29 hours per week, ordinary and overtime, is a very high estimate for the average week's work for the five main ports and the eight intermediate ports in the Dominion. The average for the smaller ports is much lower. When this data s available, I am of the opinion that I shall be able to convince the Court that the coun-ter-proposals, of the Unions will only allow a wage which will permit the waterside workers to maintain a very moderate standard of living—somewhat lower' than that already agreed upon by this tribunal. Whatever the actual number of hours worked, ordinary time, at each port, a rate of wages that will maintain a fair standard of living should be fixed on that basis. A SENSIBLE JUDGMENT. It has been contended by the employers that their obligation ceases when the men have finished work. In connection with this plea, I intend to quote the opinion of his Honour Mr. Justice Higgl.ns, in making the -award •for the Australian waterside workers, 1914 (Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, Vol. 8, page 72): —

"There is," he says, "a tremendous waste of potential human energy involved. Yet under existing circumstances it is essential for the carrying on of this industry that these men shall hold themselves free from other engagements and ready for the ships when they come. As one man puts it, 'they look to a certain boss for a living, and the boss expects them, to roll up.' Their service to the public is not confined to actual physical exertion; they serve the public by waiting in readiness for ships to come. They are entitled, at least, to food, clotlies, and shelter for themselves and their dependents during the whole time of this service. If a man keeps a horse, he has to feed him. on days when he does not use him as well as on days when lie does. If he keeps two or more horses and uses them in rotation they must'be fed ail the time. If people expect a cabman to be ready for a call at the stand "they must pay an extra rate for the time spent in waiting. It v/oui'd be absurd to say, as has been urged here, that the obligation of the master ceases with the actual physical exertion. 'They also serve who only stand and wait.'"

The foregoing sums up the position of the New Zealand waterside workers so well that I dp not think it is necessary for mc to bring forward any further argument to convince the Court that it is necessary to take into consideration the time spent by these men in waiting for work.

OYEItTIME PROBLEM,

The next question is that of overtime, and whether or not the wages earned during overtime hours should be included in the standard of living

wage. In fixing wages in permanent employment I understand that the living wage is fixed by this Court on the number of hours ordinary time worked per week; the overtime ia not Included. The employers haye stated that waterside overtime is not really overtime work at all, as sometimes a man has not worked during the ordinary working hours of tbe day. Therefore, they have skilfully designated waterside overtime work "special time." It' Is a fact that waterside workers are often idle during the ordinary hours, and are employed during overtime hours on the same day, but this can occur only on tho. day on \v;hich the vessel commences work, for if their employment is continuous

for two, three, or four days, as is the case very often, the men work during 'ordinary houva. It is safe to say that of 75 per cent, of ths overtime work 1 •performed, the men have worked for ;dt least Th. to, 8 hours' ordinary time before overtime work commenced. As ; already stated, it often occurs that ;waterside.workers actually coinrnenr.e 'work during pver-time hours, but it must be remembered that these men had been seeking work at the labour stand during the ordinary hours oic that day, -and possibly several days preceding it, and as one who has ex;perienced this waiting" for work-, I ihave no. hesitation in stating that it ;is far worse on the men than -actual liworlt on the wharf or in the ship's hold.

©TE.BTOIE AWD THE LiyETO - - WAGE.

I think I have now disposed of tho. ji argument that overtime on the waterjlfront cannot; be regarded, as actual I-overtime work. Therefore, I come to ithe (luestlon as to whether the amount earned on overtime work should be ■included in the living wage. As I have I already stated, the bonus and the special rates for certain classes of cargo have been put in the- claims for the sole purpose of- lowering the overtime ; rate. The employers, of course, know that the custom of the Court has been ,tq fix these rates at time and a-half or double time basis. But I submit [iboth ways; they must either agree to I a basic rate on the 44-hour basis and j pay the waterside workers that basic rate for 44 hours per week, whether they are working or not, or to a basic rale (without bonus or special rates) on all classes of cargo on the principle laid down in the present agreement; and time and a-half or double time on that rate for.overtime work, according to the time the overtime is performed. The bonus has never applied to the waterside industry until this Court gave a decision in favour of the employers on the Id. increase granted in March, 1921. With all due respect to tho decision of the Court, I still maintain that the Id. per hour increase of 1921 was not in the first 'instance intended as a bonus, and I think that the Court had some difficulty in arriving at a decision, as there was no direct evidence to show that the bonus was agreed upon. It is true that the report taken during an interview with the Prime Minister I referred to a bonus, but at that conference the bonus was only referred to by way of explanation from the employers' side. However, the decision \of the Court was against us, but I still think there was room for doubt, and I assure the Court that. the increase J granted in March, 1921, was not accepted as a bonus waterside woi'kers , representatives. In all the industrial agreements prior to 1921 there was no bonus connected with the wages of waterside workers. In fact, the bonus was never ser-lously discussed by the employers. I therefore contend that as the War Legislation of 1913 has been superseded by the amendment to the I.C. and A. Act, 1921-1922, and as that amendment makes no provision for bonuses, this i Court cannot allow the employers' I claim for a bonus or special rates.

SLIPPING BACK.

On the question of overtime rate, may I remind the Court that, despite what may be said to the contrary, the overtime rate based on the basic rate has fallen back considerably during recent years. As far back as we have any record the overtime rate, on an average o? all cargoes, was always in excess of time and a-half rates until 1916. Since then the overtime rate has not kept pace with time and a-half on the basic rate, and the present agreement falls much below that scale on the overtime rate to 10 p.m.

From the point of view of precedent the Court cannot consider the claims for a bonus or special rates, but should fix a basic rate for all cargoes on the lines of the present schedule, and the overtime rate should be fixed on time and a-half and double time on these rates according to the time the work is performed.

■NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WATEBSIDEItS.

The question as to.whether wages earned in overtime hours should bo included in tha. living wage Is, of course, a matter for the Court to determine. Naturally the employers demand that these rates should be so included. The practice of the Court has. been not to consider the wages earned in overtime hours in fixing a living wage for, men. employed in other industries, and the waterside workers ask the. auestlon why they should be treated on a djfferent basis from other workers. They place their services at the disposal of the employers for 14

hours per day, Monday to Friday, and for eight hours on Saturday—ln all, 78 hours per wee-k, and if w« include meal hours, which are often worked, their ' services-• are available for this time also, is it because.these men are willing to work these overtime hours that they should be penalised in the fixing of a minimum wage? We realise that overtime work is necessary to carry on the industry, but- overtime is, for the convenience, of the. employer, and the shipowner should be prepared to consider the overtime rate in the same manner as the employers in other industries. As far back as 1914 his Honour Mr. Justice Hlgglns, In fixing the wages for the Australian waterside workers, refused to allow the extra rate paid for overtime to be included in the basic wage. His reference to this question, taken from C.A.R., Vol. 8, page 70, is as follows: —

WHAT HIGGINS SAID.

j "In ordinary industries, overtime ;work means work done after a fair day's work of eight hours has already ;been done; and therefore in ordinary y industries I estimate the proper mlni,mum wage on the basis of work on tho .ordinary hours of work. But not so .here. At the same time, in estimating a man's receipts, it seems proper to treat the extra payments for nightwork as not to be counted towards the basic wage. No one contends that .extra payments for skill or for exceptional qualifications are to be. counted; these are outside the calculation or a minimum wage for ordinary labour. If, for instance, a man works 40 hours ,peir week, of which 10 are overtime ftours, I should treat him, for the parpose of the minimum wage, as getting 40 hours' work, not 30 only, but I would not treat the extra payments 'for overtime as helping to make up fche basic rate."

The decision of Justice Higglns i» an improvement on the contention held by the New Zealand employers ol waterside labour, and I would be in full agreement with his opinion but for tho fact tbat of the 75 per cent, overtime worked the men have worked from 7h to 8 hours' ordinary time on that day before overtime work commenced. This fact must be remembered, and also that when men have not worked eight hours' ordinary time on the day on which the vessel starts discharging or loading or when they commence work in overtime hours, they have been waiting for engagement at the labour stand for the greater part of the day. A FAIR BASIS. When the question of overtime is being considered by the Court, in fixing a wage on the number of hours worked, all these factors must be taken into consideration, and In this connection I would suggest that, a reasonable calculation would be to add 25 per cent, of the overtime hours worked on to the average number of ordinary hours worked per week, and fix a basic wage that will maintain -a fair standard of -living on that bisra.

I take it that, as the employers have in their claims separated special cargoes from tho basic rate, they do not Intend that the extra payments for working these cargoes should be included in the standard of living wage. However, I have to point out to the ■Court that thi.3 special rate is • paid for certain disabilities -under which the men are employed. I do not think any one \ylll contend that men employed in tlie freezer, working phosphates, dusty cargoes in bags or bulk, shovelling hot coal, handling oils or discharging sulphur should have the extra rate for this class of work included when fixing- the basic wage. Thia work, when compared with ordinary waterside work, is unpleasant, and In most cases injurious to health, and from experience we have found that men employed handling some of these cargoes suffer a breakdown in health. This . applies particularly to freezer work and to some of the artificial manures. In the case of basic slag, we have evidence of several men being laid up after working this cargo. It cannot be claimed, then, that in fixing the basic wage the extra, payments for special cargoes can be taken into consideration. The extra payment allowed at present barely compensates the men for the unpleasant and unhealthy nature of the work. I would point out to the Court that, in the wages report supplied to the Labour, Department, these extra payments wei-e included, and it was by including these rates that the average weekly rate has been kept.so high even on the limited number of men, members of the Wellington Union, who earned that amount.

In his statement, Mr. Smith stated that there was no reapon why there should be a differentiation in wages at the various ports. The waterside workers will with him without:

argument, if he will subscribe to, tbfth principle that the basic wage shall based on the unions whose working?; time per week, is the lowest. Therie are several Unions whose average working time per week, ordinary an(fc overtime,, is less than 25 hours. 1$ the employers are .prepared to fix th& basic wage on the 25 hours, per basisj then we will agree with. th# contention of Mr. Smith, but, as itqfc are aware from past experience, thii> employers will not agree to that basis, there is.only the other method left to the Court, viz., to follow thjt' precedent established for years—l,d,£ to fix a wage oh the basis of the n,umf£ ber of hours worked per week for th& men who follow the occupation, and? who are seeking work daily on ths waterfront. It has been said thaj| there has been no reason for this di&

ferentiation of wages rate. There ha^ : been_a reason, and a sound and logt-* cal one, viz., the opportunity offered t# the men to earn a living wage, where* the number of hours worked per weeji were few the hourly basic rate is higher. This is demonstrated hy tb# higher basic rate now paid in some qH the Intermediate and smaller ports? In Australia, the basic rate is fixed oii a 30-hour week for the ports of MeU bourne and Sydney; in Queensland _| is fixed on a 29-hour week, and at the northern ports on a 27-hour week*: This method for fixing the rate for caaVual waterside labour is both reasonsable and logical. On what basis, theity. should the basic Wage for the water* side workers be fixed? I think it wil|* be admitted that the rate should hi' fixed on the number of hours worked* and the counter-proposals of th 9! unions are based on that calculation The Waterside Workers' Federation has no desire to hamper the industry, in any way'; we, realise that, if the in-* dustry is not prosperous, under tho casual labour system, the men waO|. are employed will have their standi ard of living reduced on account of working a lesser number of hours* However, there is a point below whlcft,: v/e cannot go. In 1920, when the last agreement was made, we realised tha fact that, under the abnormal conditions then prevailing, the waterside workers were enabled to increase th© average number of hours worked pe# week and earn a reasonable wage. N During the past year, conditions hay* altered considerably, and then umbel: of hours worked per week has been reduced,. possibly below the normal; average; therefore, we must allow format least, "sufficient food, clothing, and shelter for the men and their depend** ents. A MODERATE DEMAND. ■' The counter-claims of the Unions; propose that the basic wage for tha five main ports be fixed at 2/6 pet hour. On the basis of an average from 28 to 30 hours per week on all timlf worked, this would allow a weekly wage of from £3/10/- to £3/15/-. li do not think it can be claimed thai" that weekly rate is more than a barq living wage. It may be argued that iinany of the men on an average work more than 30 -hours per week. I admit that is quite true, but there are mora whose average number of hours pec week is much les sthan 30. In fixing a wage the Court cannofe .take the highest average or the low* est average. The rate should be fixedl ior the average waterside worker who ? devotes the whole of his time to tha . industry.

For the eight intermediate porta,, the average basic rate proposed in the counter-claims is 2/7 per hour. This is estimated on a basis of from 26 to 2S hours per week on all time worked, which is a somewhat high average fop .normal conditions, and would allow a wage of from £3/7/2 to £3/12/4 per. weak. ■ £or the smaller Unions we realise that as the number of hours worked in some cases does not average 17. per. week for the year, it would not be rea* sonable for the Court to fix a wage oa that basis. We know also that these [men are sometimes employed at otbsg? occupations and are therefore not wholly dependent on wharf work fo? a living. I assume that the recent amendment to the I.C. and A. Act ailplies to wage fixing in making awards as well as to the general order. If that is so, the 1021-22 amendment gives a direction to the Court that it shall not reduce the rate of remunera--tion of any workers to a lower wage than will, in the opinion of the Court, maintain a fair standard of living;. The question, then, for the Court t* determine is the rate per hour that will enable the waterside worker to maintain a fair standard of living on. an average of 28 to 30 hours per weeif ■in the five main liorts and from 26 t>6 28 hours per week in th» smalfec iports.

In the course of a recent lecture on "The Balance of Power," delivered at Oxford, England, Professor A. F. Pol- ; lard made reference to the national .frontier between Canada and the Vn- , Ited Spates. That frontier, lie pointed .cut, was safe beyond the wildest of military impregnability be'cftuse no weapon of war was flaunted On land and mo ship of war sailed the tyvmt Lakes. "All you need to do 16 destroy thai peace," he said, "is to itend a regiment or a warship there, <KOd for every regiment On your side '& regiment will spring up on the pier. The poison would spread until |lmerica became like Europe, a camp M victims of armed frontiers and the iteqry of the balance of power."

I The saddest and moat desperate i thing about thfe political Jiistory of tlio last three years is that quite a large part of the University youth is standing to-day on the wrong side of the barricades! This is wiiat our j laborious professors and; academicians have brought about. They have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost —against the s<acred spirit of youth— by making reactionaries of those who should be leaders of Republicans. Youth has the glorious privilege and duty of going ahead, of keeptag a good 'mile in front of the steady old van of Progress, because young people h.ave swifter feet and hotter hearts .than we. —Hermann Wendel, a well-known Gerinaoi Social-Democrat, in address to Students at Frankfort,