WATERSIDE STEVEDORING SCHEME.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 January 1921, Page 7

WATERSIDE STEVEDORING SCHEME.

WANTED, PROMPT PUBLIC ACTION. THE CRITICISM FULLY JUSTIFIED. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.) When the Welfare League published the draft of a proposed “N.Z. Co-oper-ative Stevedoring Association on the 3rd December, 1920, with its criticism of same there were some who thought the League was rather drastic in its comments. From what has since transpired the League has been fully justified in. the action taken. We learn that members of ,the joint conference (shipowners and watersiders) have been very sore over the League’s action in publishing; they evidently wished to keep the public in the dark. One shipowner stated “it was the work of a traitor to give the cooperative scheme to the Welfare League.” we may say that no one connected with the shipping interests gave the copy to the League. It was our own special Mahatma who supplied us in strict loyalty to the public who were entitled -to know. Some harbor boards, industrial associations, and chambers of Commerce, before the holidays, discussed the proposed scheme in a rather general way. Some decided to take further action later. We want to inform them now that if action is not taken very promptly it may prove to be too late. We understand that if the Watersiders’ Federation accepted the scheme their representatives were to meet the shipowners’ representatives about the middle of January to prepare for putting the scheme into operation. It has never been denied that the draft published by us was a correct version. It could be accepted with full reliance. Our Mahatma has furnished us with another chapter of the scheme story, which thb public are entitled to know, and we will be interested to learn if the secret joint conference of shipowners and Waterside Federation delegates can question its general correctness. This; story throws a flood of light on what is planned and aimed at in connection with this so called ‘Seo-operative scheme,” and how much the public is in it.

THE STORY OF A SCHEME. Presenting the matter quite seriously, we learn that the Waterside Workers’ Federation in conference at Dunedin in 1917 went exhaustively into the matter; again at Lyttelton in 1918 the executive was instructed to draw up a scheme. This was finally agreed to at a conference at .Napier in 1919 and was handed to the employers in March, 1920. Of this scheme, which has never been made public as far as we know, one of the waterside delegates said: “The employers had so altered the proposition as to be unrecognisable, so that the altered proposed scheme would have to be submitted to the Federation.” It would .be interesting to know what that original proposition was, and why it could not be brought into the light of day We are told that meetings were held on the 17th, 18th, 20th and 21st December, 1920, to discuss “wages” and “the scheme.” One of the waterside delegates objected to the pillage clause, but the employers could “not agree to delete-the pillage clause.” The Federation delegates agreed to lay the scheme as amended before their Conference at Timaru. Two of the employers, we learn, did not view the scheme favorably, and wished their votes recorded against agreeing to it.

FINAL RALLY AND, SOME LANGUAGE, On December 21st, 1920, in the Farmed Institute Building, Wellington, we ate informed that a joint meeting of 13 shipowners and 24 watersiders discussed the “scheme.” The chief waterside delegate urged that “directors representing each side be of equal number.” Considered a chairman unnneeessary, and instanced the disputes committee (which has no chairman). Asked that watersiders be paid for statutory holidays, as this would be in the interests of efficiency. Agreed to all other clauses except the last clause on profits. He said “they did not want the small boats in the scheme; they would be a nuisance.” Another delegate suggested four directors from each side, and let them elect an independent chairman. Employers’ spokesman said “they must stand by the proposal for four employers and three watersiders as directors’; they must retain control of the industry.”

A leading waterside delegate said “the employers have not got control of the industry at present—the unions had control. They had the knowledge to do the work, and could handle the scheme better than the employers. If we cannot put this scheme into operation, I am going to help put the contractors off the water-front. We are looking forward to manapfig all industries. We have the brains to make the scheme go. You are trying to transfer the business to us because ypu have failed to carry it out successfully.” Another delegate for the watersiders said: “We are going to bring scientific methods to work, and we can run the work better than you.” The employers reported ou resumption “that they could not agree to alter the directors’ clause; there was no objection to a quarterly balance, but they could not agree to pay for statutory holidays.” The employers suggested that the scheme be tried at Wellington, Bluff, Timaru; and the watersiders at Wellington, Timaru and Napier. At one meeting of the employers, we are informed, one of the shipowners objected to the scheme on the ground that his company was working on the lines of increasing a permanent staff they had now working. Another pointed out that, whilst the scheme was being tried, the present contractor organisation would be destroyed. Note! If only half this story were true, and we are confident that it is all true, as we have names, dates and details which it is unnecessary to give, surely it is time that the general public and the Government of this Dominion took a hand in this scheme. After all it concerns not only the big shipping companies and the Waterside Workers’ Federation. It concerns us all. and that is our justification for telling this story.