WATERFRONT LABOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11422, 19 January 1923, Page 7

WATERFRONT LABOUR

THE REGENT AWARD REVIEWED BY SECRETARY OF FEDERATION. ‘‘A MISERABLE WAGE.” (Special to “New Zealand Times.”) AUCKLAND, January 16. The position in connection with the watersiders and the recent award of the Arbitration Court, which made certain reductions in the rates of pay for waterside workers was placed before the members of the local union by Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the Alliance of Labour and the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation. Reference was also made to the conditions of waterside labour. There was a large attendance. Mr L. Glover, of Wellington, president of the Watersiders’ Union, occupied the chair. HAD THEY GOT JUSTICE? Mr Roberts said that the main purpose for oalling the meeting was to place before the people of Auckland the conditions under whioh waterside workers were employed at the preseut time, and to show the people of Auckland whether or not the Arbitration Court had meted out justice to working men who perform a social service to the city. For a number of years they had been told that if the waterside workers would only go to the court and did not receive justice the general public would see they received it. They were now putting their case before the public, and were asking whether the court had given justice to watersiders or any wage-earners in New Zealand during recent times? “STANDING BY” FOR HOURS.

For a number of years past it had been the custom in this country to adjust wages in all ports in accordance with the opportunity for all waterside workers to earn a living. In some of the ports waterside workers stood by from day to day, week to week, and year to year, and the particular number of hours varied from'’ 20 to 30 a week. They placed their services at the disposal of the shipowners for 78 hours a week, and were employed on an average 28 to 30 hours. Now, in the ports where a worker was employed a lesser number of hours the wages were higher than in ports where the men were employed for a greater number of hours. The Arbitration Court took the lowest-paid port in New Zealand—Wellington—dragged all down to that level, reduced the pay 2d per hour on the 1921 rate, and eaid that was removing anomalies. The result had been that there had been reductions which had no parallel. “BIG REDUCTIONS.” At Auckland men employed trimming coal in ships’ hunkers were reduced 10s per day of 12 hours, and’ the award provided that the men should he at the disposal of the employers during the twelve hours if required. In the freezer aboard ship the men were reduced 7s 6d per day of 12 hours, while at Wanganui and Napier the reduction amounted on some classes of work to 11s 8d and 8s per day respectively. At New Plymouth, Timaru, Oamaru, and other ports the reduction on the basic rate was 5d an hour, ot 3s 4d for eight hours. The court went even further, for at the port of Waitara, which employed mainly natives, it reduced the wages £1 Is 8d for n 24-hour day. It was continually being drummed into the public that the waterside worker got very high wages during the war period, but such was not the case. WELLINGTON CITED.

As a matter of fact, the waterside worker was paid a miserable wage in New Zealand. Take the port of Wellington, which was the highest paid port in this country on the average, although it had the lowest hourly rate, due to the fact that the work was more regular at that port. For the year August, 1921, to August, 1922, 1171 of the highest paid men earned £3 7s per week, and that included overtime, special work, working, meal hours and holidays and that kind of work. At Auckland, for the six months ending November, 1922, 1038 of the highest paid men earned £3 3s 8d per week. He quoted wages earned at numerous other ports to show that the men were not receiving fair living wages. Regarding the handling of cargo on the wharves, thev had no doubt read resolutions from Farmers’ Unions stating that it was very high in New Zealand. He would like to point out that it only cost |d to put a 561 b box of butter aboard a ship, or Id for. a ■freight carcase (,601b) of meat; while the shipowner charged 6s 4d for carrying the box of butter and 6s 8d for the carcase of meat. Cheese cost l-200th of Id per lb, boots 3-25th of Id per pair, a suit of clothes l-16th, and coal Is lOd.