THE WATERSIDE “STUNT.”

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16612, 11 December 1919, Page 7

THE WATERSIDE “STUNT.”

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, In a recent issue of the Herald a paragraph appeared which stated m a general way mat the men working on rhe Wellington wharves were earning the princely * sunk of £l6 per week. The publication of such startling information has naturally evoked considerable local comment, and has also been the subject matter of a good deal of correspondence, needless to say of the usual anonymous type, through the columns of this journal. In your issue of yesterday one of these wiseacres who slinks behind the nom .deplume of “Doubtful,” seeks to unburden himself of his apparent disdain at the very idea of those who follow the shipping industry receiving the above amount per week. Unfortunately (for himself.) “Doubtful” is either displaying his own deplorable ignorance on the question of what is earned on the waterfront, or else he is some disturbing element, out to stir up strife in the camp of the wage-earner. So far as Wellington is concerned the usual rate of pay is 2d or 3d per hour less than it is at New Plymouth. It is quite true that at the former port there may be more work offering, but there is also a correspondingly larger number of men seeking employment in the industry. Concerning the £l6 per week tale, it is also true that owing to the very bad state in which the coal cargo of an overseas ship was found to be in upon arrival at Wellington recently, the watersiders asked for, and I believe were paid, an exceptionally high rate, \ Now, sir, assuming that they were paid a rate which would work out at £l6 per week (on a job which probably lasted three or four days), what is the objective in scattering broadcast per medium of the press such erroneous and misleading statements as the one referred to and which can only be productive of further industrial discontent, and which must of necessity create false impressions in regard to those who work on the waterfront. Small wonder, eh; that “Doubtful” opens his mournful epistle to the New Plymouth public by explaining “1 was simply astounded at the earnings of watersiders given by you.” But to get down to business, so Jar as the waterside industry is concerned locally, may I in a word or two relieve “Doubtful” of any doubts or misgivings ho may bo labouring under in regard to the earnings of the local men. First, 1 may state for the benefit of “Doubtful” or any other doubter, that tbero is not a living in the wharf work here for any man with a family ; the men all have to seek other work

to make ends meet. It is only reasonable to say that we had a fair time the * other week while the Home liner was here, but what about this week? As things appear to-night- (Wednesday) the majority of the men may earn £1 or 30s if the ““'xpc tried arrivals” come to hand-on Eriday or Saturday. I might mention as another illustration thaV when the Port Alma was here in October, 1918, the agents concerned decided to carry on loading operations (frozen meat) on a Sunday, for which the rate is very high, and by working till 10.30 that night the amount per man for the day was in the vicinity of £4; but who would bare been so insane as to circulate a rumour that £23 per week was being earned on the New Plymouth wharf at that time? Yet on the face of it is not this £l6 a week bogy from Wellington tantamount to the same thing? Upon this subject . much more might .be written, but I will not trespass further on vour valuable space. Hoping you will be considerate enough to give publicity to my letter, the gist of which. J feel sure, will appeal to all fair-minded readers as being a satisfactory explanation of the £l6 a week “stunt.” -Tam, etc., ELTJf? Secretary N.P. Watersiders’ Union. P.S.—lf “Doubtful” is will ’ he bo good enough to disclose his identity.—G.E.