THE UNFORTUNATE CASUAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14144, 20 August 1909, Page 6

THE UNFORTUNATE CASUAL.

TOO MANY WHARF WORKERS.

PREFERENCE ATTACKED.

A PROBLEM FOR GOVERNMENT.

[BY TELEGRAM!.—rRESS ASSOCIATION.!

Thursday. Tire "waste" problem as it applies to superfluous labour was discussed at the waterside workers' conference to-day on the following Wellington remit:—" That the conference request the Government to institute an inquiry into the extent of waste labour involved in the existing system of employing labour to carry out the waterside work of the country, and that legislation be provided to limit the numbers that shall be employed in the industry to the number that can find a living in it." Mr. J. Bruton, who moved the motion, said ho did not want the delegates to think that he wished to exclude any man from any industry in which he might make a living, but casual labour had come to such a pass that there was a deplorable amount of waste. He said, with all due responsibility, that men were not able to earn a living on the Wellington wharves and that they were being degraded. The pangs of poverty were the worst of all pangs, and it was reasonable to ask the Government to grapple with the matter. The country could maintain three times its present population if men were only given an opportunity to make a living. The best way to employ labour was on 'the soil. It was heart-breaking to look round Wellington and see people going to places of amusement, motor cars plying here and there, and other men going home without a penny in their pockets. Mr. J. Jackson (Greymouth) seconded the motion. Up to last Christmas, he said, 230 men had been pretty constantly engaged on the wharf at Greymouth ; then suddenly the export of timber dropped, and many of the men left, but as soon as the timber industry revived a little men came flocking back to the wharf. The supply of labour on the wharves Was altogether too great. The problem had to be faced, and the only way to tackle it was by an inquiry.

Mr. H. Voyce (Lyttelton) contended that the casual worker was not assisted to the extent that he should be by the present Government. The average wage of the stevedore working hi Lyttelton did not average more than £2 per week.

Delegates : They are lucky. Mr. Voyce: "I am quoting the maximum." He complained that the Railway Union at Lyttelton monopolised labour, and he could prove that the men in the Railway Union had averaged more than £3 per week in Lyttelton for 12 months. The time had arrived when the Government should make provision for dealing with the influx of casual labourers to the ports of the Dominion.

" You may talk about, the curse of drink, hut the curse of casual labour is far ■worse than the curse of drink," said Mr. A. L. Jones. Many a good man had been driven to drink, ho continued, by the curse of casual labour. You might talk about preference as much as you liked. What had preference done here? The union had swelled its membership, swelled its finances, and largely helped to bring about the curse of casual labour. Owing to the existence of this very curse, men were driven to commit crime. They could see men charged in the criminal courts with offences. " What is your occupation the magistrate would ask. "Wharf labourer" would perhaps be the answer. That was why the wharf labourer was looked down upon. Ho pleaded for the unfortunates who had wives and families. "I can suffer," ho said, '• but I don't want to see my wife and children suffering." Mr. F. McCann (Wellington) launched out into a vigorous attack on preference. A union, he said, could debar no one from becoming a member of a waterside workers" union. So long as preference obtained there would be no possibility of limitation. The preference clause would have to be repealed. Men had been forced into the unions. Mr. Jackson: "Who forced them?"

Mr. McCann: "The preference clause, You cannot obtain employment from any man unless you can show that you are a financial member of tlio union." Preference unquestionably had forced men into the unions. In many instances they paid their 3s 6d (entrance fee), and nothing more was heard of them for 12 months.

A Delegate: " Where do they go?" Mr. McCann: "On to the wharves. They compete for employment with men who* are financial members of the union, men who have paid their contributions 12 months ago." When an election of a secretary for the Wellington waterside workers took place lie found that there were 170 financial members and 200 unfinancial. He could not say how many men were imfinaneial now. Until the preference clause was removed they could have no proper understanding between master and man.

Mr. D. Agnew: "We fought hard for preference, and— *' , Mr. Bruton raised a point of order. The motion had nothing to do with preference, he submitted.

The .chairman ruled that the subject of preference could not be discussed. Mr. D. McLaren said that preference or no preference, there would be an excess of labour under the present conditions. When employment was Black in any industry there was a rush to the wharves. It would not be right to exclude men from membership of the union. The motion suggested that the supply of labour should be regulated by some independent authority, not that the unions should be made a close corporation. Mr. D. Casey (Napier) held that the Government was largely to blame, and the fostering of immigration had a direct bearing on the existing condition of things. Preference had nothing to do with the question. Preference or no preference, the men would bo on the wharves.

Mr. J. Osborne (Greymouth) said that the solution of the question was in getting labour adequately represented in Parliament.

Mr. Bruton, in reply, contended that if the Government properly handled the land question a solution would be reached. The motion was carried unanimously. The conference resolved that it affirms its conviction that the rent of land is a social value which belongs to the conir mnnity, hence it should be taken by taxation for the common benefit by an increase of the land tax.