Work On Waterfront

Northern Advocate, 30 June 1943, Page 3

Work On Waterfront

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association felt it necessary to correct an impression conveyed by statements made in the House of Representatives recently which indicated that there had been a substantial improvement in work on the waterfront, said the general secretary of the association today. It was not right or, advisable that a feeling of complacency in regard to cargo handling should go uncorrected. In point of fact, many unsatisfactory matters pertaining to the handling of cargo at the principal New Zealand ports were substantially the same now as they were before the war, and the work left a great deal to be desired. The Minister for Labour has stated that figures would prove that 25 per cent better work was being done the waterfront today than at any pre-j vious time,” the secretary said. “No ■ doubt this statement is based on figures supplied to the Minister by the Waterfront Control Commission, but the basis adopted by the commission lin compiling these figures gives q j wrong comparison of actual working

Speed By Overtime j ‘‘The commission bases' its figures on jwhat is known ns winch time, that is. [time rturing which the winches are working. Under this method, each delay lot' five minutes or so is counted as non- | working time, so that in an eight-hour (day not: more than six hours might be counted its working time, whereas under the employers' method, unless there were ■ any major delays, such as through min |or a breakdown of machinery, the time would be counted as eight hours.

"If, say, a gang loaded 100 tons between S a.ni. and 5 p.m., the commission's record would show an average of 10?, tons per gang per hour, whereas the emjploycrs would show the average as 12?. (tons. These figures are quoted purely to show how different methods may give an entirely false reflection of the work actually being performed.

“Although vessels are being turned around in less time than before the war, this quicker despatch is due mainly, if not wholly, to night and week-end work, for which high overtime rates are paid. Abuses Still Exist

; “The question with which the public is !concerned is whether abuses known to (exist on the waterfront prior to and early jin the war years have been eliminated, and whether work is. now being carried ion with that ‘win the war effort’ so essential under present-day conditions. Bmiployers of waterside labour regret such (is 'not the ease, and at certain points ipractiees are still in operation among the linen which existed before tlie war. and jure a definite hindrance to speed and jellicienoy. 1

"Among these abuses is the spelling! system, whereby on overseas loading! Vessels, of 12 men paid to work in a hold, i six work and six rest, taking an hour, about. This practice is not confined to! 1 refrigerated ships, and on ships working general cargo, where there are usually six, men to a gang, it is seldom that morel jthan four are working at one time. These j Ipractiees of spelling have grown only in j recent years, and should not lie tolerated ■ under present-day conditions. : “Restrictions on the size of slings by ■the men and the ceasing of work before ■ the correct times for knocking off at meal (hours or at the finish for the day are [other serious hindrances in despatch. Refusal to work in rain, even of the lightest ■ nature, causes many unnecessary delays. •'ll', as has been stated on many occasions, the working hours of waterside ■ workers are 84 a week, their earnings (could not be less than ClO/1/10 a week,” the secretary continued. “Actually, the ■average at Wellington would he about j CIO a week, and the hours of work about piO.. It is safe to say that no more than ■lo* per cent, of the men would average anything h'-’e Nf> hours a week.” The Minister Replies j “The statement by the Secretary of the ■ New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association, published today, was, it is claimed, ; intended to correct an impression conveyed bv my statements in the House recently of the good results obtained in the (despatch of vessels, but it goes further than it purports to do, for it quite obviously substitutes an opposite impression iby reflecting discreditably on the conduct and work of waterside workers, and is so |erroneous that it calls for reply,” said the ■ Minister for Labour (Mr. Webb) last night. ■ The Minister said his remarks were, as ■implied in the Press statement, based on [figures supplied by the Waterfront Control (Commission, the accuracy of whose rewords had been previously attested by a ■ qualified appointee on behalf of the shipping companies. j “The commission records both the net ■ and gross speeds of working and, whatever basis is taken for comparison, the results unmistakably disclose an improvement over the past year’s working, compared with the previous year, which, in ■ turn, disclosed a marked improvement (over the preceding years.” i The Minister quoted, as a clear indication of good performance, averages of ■ work for all ports in the Dominion over ■the past year. These represented, he said. lan all-over increase of approximately 25 per cent, over the pre-war speed of workling. It would be seen bv the unprejudiced |that there was justification for commending the men in general for the job they were doing. Of course, it was true that there were occasional discreditable occurrences. but they were far less prevalent 'than the published statement indicated, land they represented onlv a minor factor jin lost output. It was. therefore, all the more necessary that undesirable incidents (should not be singled out or magnified out of proportion and published so as to create false impressions in the mind of the public and °ive rise to a wave of resentment among the great majority of good workers on the waterfront. The Minister said the commission possessed figures—available to any responsible citizen—which indicated conclusively that despite faults, the cost oer ton and speed of working cargo in New Zealand compared very favourably indeed with Ihe cost and speed of working in Britain, the United States, and Australia.