HANDLING CARGO

New Zealand Herald, Volume 78, Issue 24050, 22 August 1941, Page 6

HANDLING CARGO

IMPROVEMENT NEEDEDI WARNING BY HON. P. C. WEBB "ONLY ONE GOVERNMENT" (S.R.) WELLINGTON, Thursday "There is going to be only one Government —and it is this Government," said the Minister of Labour, the Hon. I'. C. Webb, in the House of Representatives to-day when speaking of the need for improvement in waterfront work at some ports. "Whether it is employer or worker, those .standing in the way of the speedier turn-round of boats must get out ot it. Iho job must go on. We will find difficulties, but. il we approach them in a spirit of goodwill they will be overcome." As soon as Mr. Webb mentioned waterside workers Mr. W. J. Poison (Opposition Stratford) remarked: "Take off your hat." "1 will take off my hat to 95 per cent of them. 1 think the other 5 percent should not be there." Mr. F. W. Doidge (Opposition —Tauranga): We take off our hat, too, to the 95 per cent. Why don't you deal with the other 5 per cent? Work on the waterfront generally in the last 12 months was better than in the last few years, Mr. Webb said. Work at Wellington was better, but was not yet up to standard, there being room for greater co-operation. Work in other centres had been praised, but it was not so good at Auckland, and tilings would have to improve there. Mr. J. A. Lee (Democratic Labour — Grey Lynn): Why not share the bonus with the "seagulls"? "1 think that many of the 'seagulls' should be in the union, and unless some of the unions play the game they will .be in and the work thrown open," the Minister replied.

WAGES ON WATERFRONT UNION PRKSIDK.VT'S CLAIM In answer to a .statement by Captain C. V. Stanieh, Auckland waterfront controller, that the average weekly wage of an A grade waterside worker for the six months ended .July 1 was £9 8s 4d, Mr. H. Barnes, president ot the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, repeated yesterday that the average wage of waterside workers did not exceed £0 a week. It was untair to seize on a period most favourable to one of the parties in the dispute and to quote that as average, said Mr. Ba rues.

Mr. Barnes said he could quote sixnionthlv periods when the average wage did not exceed £3 a week. Captain Stnnich's statement was misleading, as it was inclusive of bonuses and because he selected a period which embraced extra rates laid down for night shift and week-end work. Mr. Barnes added that waterside workers had the utmost difficulty in getting their case fairly presented to the public, and suggested that a debate on the waterside workers' case should be held in the Town Hall. "While 1 agree with Mr. Barnes that the watersiders' case has not always been fairly presented, 1 fail to see during the present crisis that any good purpose can be served by a general public debate," said Captain Stanieh last night, commenting upon the remarks made by Mr. H. Barnes. ''The Waterfront Control Commission as a State controlled institution cannot be expected to take any part in such a debate." Mr. Barnes' statement that it was unfair and misleading to quote any one period of a watersider's earnings was justifiable, said Captain Stanieh. However, Mr. Barnes' previous statement inferred that he was referring to the current earnings and that these did not exceed £6 a week. Captain Stanieh therefore had felt in incumbent upon him to supply the figures lor the six months ended July, The end of this period was a very slack one. However. the overall wage of unionist workers was £7 19s 3d. This included A and B class men. but did not include the weekly wage of £'2 10s -id paid to nonunionist workers for the same period.