WATERSIDE EMPLOYMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18736, 14 December 1922, Page 6

WATERSIDE EMPLOYMENT.

It is very questionable indeed. whether in the present circumstances Mr Roberts, secretary of the Waterside Workers' Federation, is best serving tho interests of the members of his organisation by such speeches as jhat which he delivered on Tuesday evening. By no stretch of imagination could the speech be described as a reasoned review of the recent award of the Arbitration Court or even as an accurate description of waterside conditions, and by no exercise of indulgence could it be classed as an effort in conciliation. Mr Roberts is a forcible speaker, gifted with the power of influencing the minds and stirring the passions of those who feel they have been harshly treated. At his meeting the other night he had a sympathetic audience and he played on its feelings to the extent of his ability. The Arbitration Court devoted an unusual amount of time and attention to the waterside workers' dispute, and ultimately awarded a basic wage of 2s 2d per hour. To arrive at this amount the Court added 25 per cent, to the ordinary rate for unskilled labour. The overtime rates were slightly increased. Several anomalies and restrictive cour

ditions were, however, not repeated in the new award, because, in the opinion of the Court, they had in the past operated oppressively and had been subject in many cases to interpretations which appeared to the Court to be unreasonable. The reduction in wages made by the Court was one of twopence per hour. This compares favourably with the reductions made in other classes of workers. Mr Roberts has set himself the task of proving that these alterations will reduce the waterside workers to a state of bondage and beggary. As ho used a wealth of adjectives, and a largo fund of extravagant language, it is probable enough that he succeeded in exciting a large amount of indignation with the judgment of the Arbitration Court. His address purported to supply an answer to the question, “Will there be a strike?” While it might not be fair to suggest that he advocated a strike the only possible effect of such a speech was to make a strike at least more probable, if not actually more certain than it has been. When it was first hinted that a strike on the waterfront was likely to occur after the elections, the suggestion was derided by Labour leaders, who protested that it was merely a “frame-up” by the press, designed to influence the elections. The net effect of Mr Roberts’s speech on the eve of a ballot of waterside workers cn the question of the acceptance or rejection of the Arbitration Court’s award could have no effect other than to influence waverers to express a determination to strike. It remains to be seen, therefore, whether the suggestion that a strike was contemplated was really a “frame-up” by the press or whether there was not a largo amount of disingenuousness in the repudiation of the suggestion by union officials. The award, it is to remembered, expresses the reasoned conclusion of the Arbitration Court, and any body of men who set out to float awards incurs a serious responsibility. The question of the improvement of the system of employing labour on the waterfront is not easy' of solution. The present system is certainly far from being satisfactory and the waterside workers’ energies could with more advantage be directed to effecting ait improvment of it than to entering upon any risky strike adventure under present economic conditions.