THE WATERSIDE WORKERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18735, 13 December 1922, Page 6

THE WATERSIDE WORKERS

THEIR CASE OUTLINED. ADDRESS BY MR J. ROBERTS. WILL THERE BE A STRIKE? The case for the waterside workers was outlined in a speech delivered at the King’s Theatre last evening by Mr James Roberts, secretary' of the New. Zealand Alliance of Labour and of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation, who took as the title of the address the question, “Will there be a strike?” Mr A. M‘Carthy, who presided, introduced the speaker as “much the biggest man m New Zealand to-day—a bigger man, with a bigger heart than Mr Massey, and with more brains in his little finger than in the whole of Mr Massey’s head. I also think,” continued Mr MUaruiy, “that in the past he has done more for the workers than the eight Labour members in the House, and in the next 10 years I believe that ,ie will do more for the watersiders and the other workers in this country than the _ 17 Labour members now in the House. During a long period he has kept the whole force of the watersiders at once • point, and he is going to play an important in the Labour movement in the future. ’ (Applause.) Mr Roberts, who was warmly received, said that his object in calling that meeting wag to tell the people of Dunedin something about the recent agreement which the Arbitration Court had meted out to the waterside workers of New Zealand, and also to deal with the question of the strike which had been so much talked of during the past few weeks. He had noticed that in ilie local press a few days before December 7 it had been stated that a big industrial upheaval was coming. The local secretary here had communicated with him about + he matter, and - he had replied denying thati there was any truth in it at all. “But,’’ continued Mr Roberts, “the press here knew better than that. They said that we knew nothing about it whatever and were not reliable. But how. was it that the press had been so wonderfully silent regarding the strike since last Thursday? There was a strike all right—a real hit on the Tory political party in New Zealand and f there has been silence since it was delivered. Proceeding, Mr Roberts said liis business that evening was to ask them to consider the sentence which had been passed on the watersiders of New Zealand by the Arbitration Court, and in doing so it was not his intention to abuse the Arbitration Court or its personnel. If they had not a case without abuse, then they had no case at all. For a number of years past the public had been told by the newspapers that there was a great third party concerned in all the industrial disputes in New Zealand, and that point was particularly stressed when there was a watersiders’ dispute in progress. The press had also told the unions that they would be well advised to go before the Arbitration Court and place their economic welfare in its hands. Now, they knew that they had not got justice, and he was very pleased to have an opportunity of putting their case before the public. A Voice; The press won’t put it in. Mr Roberts; Oh yes they will. They like me.—(Laughter.) His reason for coming before them was to show them how false were the reports that the watorsia© workers of this country were becoming millionaires. These; statements had appeared so frequently in the press that their case was foredoomed to failure, but he intended to give them some actual facts and figures with respect to the wages earned by the waterside workers at the principal ports in New Zealand. Since 1901 the wages of the waterside workers, whether they were fixed by the Arbitration Court of by' direct conference with the employers, were fixed on the following system: The ports where there was the most regular work received the lowest hourly rate of pay, and the ports where the work was casual received the highest hourly rate of pay. The reason for adopting that method was to afford the genuine worker an, opportunity to obtain a living, and it had proved satisfactory because in the ports where there was the lowest hourly rates of pay the average weekly rate was the highest. Those facts were placed before the court; but it was no use. The court had stated that there were anomalies in this method, and it had proceeded to remove ‘ these anomalies by taking the basic wage at the lowest earning port in New Zealand, and reducing it by 2d, and then reducing all the higher paid ports to the same level. By that means there were some ports in New Zealand where the basic wage had been reduced by as much as 5d per hour, and others where it had been reduced by 4d. 3d, and so on. On the average the basic wage at all ports had been, reduced by about 2s fid per day. One would have thought that the court would have been satisfied with that, reduction, but hot at all It went further, and said that the high rates which were paid at some of the ports for coal and frozen meat should be reduced, and that had been, a far greater reduction than that in the basic wage. In Auckland the men handling frozen meat had been subjected to a reduction of 12a fid per day. and those trimming coal had been penalised to the> extent of 10s; at ■Wanganui the reduction was 11s, and at, Napier 8s; while the men at Westport and Greymouth. working from 10 o’clock to 8 o’clock, suffered a reduction of 14s 8d per working shift. Coming to Dunedin and Port Chalmers, where to use the watersiders’ phrase, “the boot had been put in pretty solidly.” it was found that the wages of coal workers had been reduced by 3d per hour. On the ordinary rate there was a reduction of 2d per hour, and on frozen meat some of the men had lost as much as 9d per hour, while the men on repair work had also been seriously affected. In making these reductions the court had staled that it was removing anomalies, but he knew of nothing more inconsistent than the operation of its latest award. He was now going to quote a number of figures to show the actual earnings of the watersiders, and he had not gone to the workers for those figures, but to the employers. In Wellington for the year ended August, 1922, the weekly wages of the 1171 highest-paid men had averaged £3 14s fid per week, a figure that would be reduced to £3 7s if the wages of all the men employed on the waterfront there were taken into account.; at Auckland 1038 of the highest paid men earned an average of £3 3s 8d pen week for the six months ended February, 1922; at Dunedin 192 of the highest paid men earned for the period ended June 14, 1922, £3 5s fid per week; at Port Chalmers 156 men earned £2 14s Hd for a six-monthly period; and so on at other ports, the wages averaging from £3 11s 9d to £2 Is 2d per week. Those figures had been placed before the court, and, with the reductions -”hich he had just quoted, was it possible lor a man working on the waterfront to maintain himself and his dependents in a reasonable standard of comfort,? —(Voices: “No.”) Of course there had been other figures prepared by the employers placed before the court, but they had struck an average of 39 weeks, and for the other 13 weeks he supposed the water - sider could turn his wife' and family out to grass.—(Laughter.) It,. had been stated that the watersider was n lazy, careless, shiftless revolutionary Bolshevist, and that he did not want to work; but he could assure his hearers that if the men were given the alternative of working or of hanging around the wharf 99 per cent, of them would take the job.— (Applause.) Proceeding, Mr Roberts said he had seen an incorrect, statement in the press about travelling time and the payment of fares. The foots of the position wore that there was trouble over that mat-

ter, because if men were now required tt, come up to Dunedin from Port Chalmer K their fares would not be paid, as had beoi the case during the last 30 years. If the| shipowners wanted the men to come up to Dunedin they should pay their fares, ana the men hadi a perfect right to refuss unless that were done. They were .frequently told by the newspapers, continued Mr Roberta, that they were getting splen did wages, that they had ideal conditions of employment, and that they should be well satisfied men. He admitted that # fhere had been industrial discontent for a number of years, and, further, that the men had protested against their conditions, and he wanted to tell them the reasons for that discontent so that the people generally, including their friends the farmers, would understand the underlying causes. From 1912 to 1921 there had been a 55 per cent.increase in wages in New Zealand meet an 87 ner cent, rise in the cost of living, and from 1891 the total increase in the cost of living had been 116 per oerit. During the same period the waterside workers wages had 'been increased by less than 74per cent.. and in those figures they had the sum total of the reasons for the discontent from the North. Cape to the Bluff. The speaker here quoted some figures to show that in Australia the increase in wages amounted to between 175 and 200 per cent., and the net result was that whereas the basic rate in New Zealand to-day was 2s 2d per hour, it was 2s 9d for the same class of work in Australia. What did these reductions mean to the P. and 0. Company and the Cunard Company, and the other great shipping trusts? They meant that at least £250,000 a year was taken away from the waterside workers of New Zealand and transferred to the profits of the shareholders in these great concerns. In other words. £250,000 worth of food and clothing and shelter was taken away from the worlung people of this country and placed to the credit of these great commercial trusts that were gripping New Zealand by the throat, and could strangle this country any time they desired to do so. “For saying these things I have been called a revolutionary Socialist and an extreme Labourite, etc. I don’t car© what they call me. They can call me what they like so long as I can give more food to the men and women and children of this country, and better houses and better clothing. Call me anything you like; but foil God’s sake don’t call me ‘sane Labour.'— (Applause.) What have the editors of our great newspaper’s done, and what,have our great politicians done ? They are pulling the bottle from the baby’s mouth and say-, ing “You are having too much.’ That is what they are doing, and if any honour attaches to it they are welcome to the lot.” Dealing next with the cost of handling commodities over the wharf, as it affected the cost of living, Mr Roberts quoted figures which he stated would show that this was an almost negligible item. The cost of stowing _a. box of butter in a ship’s hold, he said, was Id, but the cost of taking that butter Home was 6s 4d. It was the same m regard to meat, wool, coal, and articles o£ clothing, and if they handled many of these things for nothing how much would the merchant or the storekeeper reduce his price.— (Laughter.) Passing on, the speaker said that £3 16s Id was the wage fixed by the Arbitration Cooirt for a man to support himself and a wife and family of two children. After dealing with rent and firing, etc., he came to the amount allowed for the purchase of food (25s fid) and quoted figures with a view to showing its inadequacy even in the case of a family of four. In Australia a medical man had prepared a schedule of foodstuffs for a family of four, and it worked out at £1 13s 6d per week, bus here in New Zealand the worker was expected to do it on 25s fid a week. Dealing finally with the question of a strike, Mr Roberts said they were told that the Labour leaders in this country were fomenting industrial trouble. As one who had had some experience of strikes, _ he wanted to that the man who desired to work up' a strike should not hold any position in the Labour movement. “But,” he continued, “we are face to face with a process of slow starvation unless we take some action. Labour does not want an industrial upheaval. If it did it had plenty of reason long ago, God knows; but what we want is that the people of this countryshould have plenty of food and clothing and shelter, and w© are asking the public to give that to the waterside workers of this country. If you do not do that wa must conclude that you are going to help to crush us down into the lowest depths of poverty; but before we get there we are going to fight every inch of the way, .and before we go down some of the people who have been fighting us will know that we have been fighting. We do not want it. We are seeking a reasonable means of remedying this economic injustice. We have no desire to inconvenience the public; but surely we have a right to demand from the public at least enough food and clothing and shelter for ourselves and our children. Surely the transport workers are of more value to the people of New Zealand than the shipping trusts. —(Applause.) What may be done so far as industrial trouble is concerned I cannot tell you to-night. I wish x could say there was no possibility of it in the near future, but I cannot say that, because I know that the reasons for it exist on the waterfront and among the transport workers to-day, and so long as those reasons exist no man should attempt to predict what will happen. If they are removed, or an attempt is made to remove them, I >believe there is sufficient common sense among the working classes in New Zealand to avert any thing in the nature of industrial trouble. We appeal to you to consider our side of the case and to ask yourselves what you do under the reductions we have suffered. We have not received the jusflice to which we are entitled, and we want the support of the public to get over this difficulty. At all costs we are going to demand that the men-folk who work on the waterfront shall be fed and clothed and housed, that their women folk shall be fed and clothed and housed, and that their children shall also receive food and clothing and shelter and education so that they will be able to fight the battles of Lanour in the days to come.—(Loud applause.) , •liter Mr Roberts had answered several questions ho was accorded an enthusiastic! vote of thanks on the motion of the chairman.