WATERSIDERS’ WAGES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16922, 22 December 1922, Page 7

WATERSIDERS’ WAGES.

A REPLY TO MR ROBERTS. In an address delivered in Christchurch on December 17. Mr J. Robert?, general secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation, sail that, as the result of the Arbitration Court’s new award, the wages of waterside workers had been reduced ;jy amounts ranging from 2s to £1 Is 8e a day. In some ports the basic wage was reduced by 5d an hour, and at others it was reduced by 4d, 3d, and so on. Taking it on the average, said Air Roberts, the basic wage was reduced by 2s 6d a day. In answer to Mr Roberts’s statements. which .are said to be entirely misleading, particulars are now furnished of the actual earnings of the watersiders for the first week of the currency of the new award, ended D cember 6. so far as the "Wellington workers are concerned.

Instead of the enormous reductions predicted, the low wages which wouii rule, and the hardships to be inflicted on the wives and families, it seems that the average wage per man earned is £5 4s lOd under the new award, a reduction of only 2s 9d per week co n pared with the old award, or 3d per week less than Mr Roberts stated should be taken off ! Here are the figures, which are stated to bo authentic : Old agree- New No. employed . . 964 964 Total hours . . 37,324 37,224 Average hours 38.7 38.7 Total wages . £5956 4 s 8d £4923 5s 6d man £5 4a ]od £5 2s Id Difference weekly . *2s 9d The above statement shows the -wages actually earned under the new awad compared with what would have been paid had the old agreement been in force. Mr Roberts also stated that unde* the old agreement the average wage earned in Wellington for 38.8 hours per week was £4 19s Bd. Yet tho statement above quoted shows that fo* 38.7 hours’ work for the week ended December 6 of this year the men a earnings averaged £5 2s Id each. Referring to Mr Roberts’s criticism, Mr T. O. Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, say. 4: —“ As regards the award itself, th-j public will probably attach no undue importance to Mr Roberts’s remarks, because it will be realised that the decision of the Court has been given after a very exhaustive investigation lasting several months, during which both parties were afforded ample opportunity of presenting argument n& 1 evidence in support of their respective claims, and fully availed themselves of that opportunity. On a certain occasion. less than a year ago, Mr W. T. Young and Mr J. Roberts both ex pressed their entire confidence in the arbitration system and their great anxiety that it should continue to function. Now that these gentlemen have been, unsuccessful in their en deavours to persuade the Court- to maintain wages and conditions obtain ed during abnormal circumstances and economically unsound, they launch a furious attack upon that system with intent to destroy it.”

T have no doubt.” said Mr Bishop, “ that the favourable opinion of the Arbitration system which they both expressed on the occasion a*bovo referred to was sincere. It is therefore all the more regrettable that their disappointment should warp their judgment to such an extent as to induce them to savagely attack a system which by Its operation during a number of years has inspired confidence in the minds of a great majority of both workers and employers. “Mr Roberts’s statement is a most unfair and unjustifiable attack; unfair because the facts are presented in such a way as to !>e wholly misleading, and unjustifiable because the results of the award are not what he represents them to be : therefore it is necessary to discuss the statement nt some length. REGARDING WAGES. “ Referring to Mr Roberts’s statement regarding wage reductions it is necessary to point out that the hourly j wage rate for ordinary time in 1921 was 2s Id. being made up of the 2s 3d rate agreed upon in 1929. plus Id bonus, tho equivalent of the last bonus granted by the Arbitration Court. The reduction made in the present award from 2s 4d to 2s 2d, or 2d per hour, is in accord with the reduction made by the court’s general orders of last May and of the present month, the first of which was lid and the second *d, per hour, a total of 2d. It is stated by Air Roberts that the average wage earned on the waterfront throughout New Zealand under the- rate of 2s 4d per hour was £2 15s per week, and that taking into account the overtime rates and special work rates the average was less than £3 7s <>d per week, and he states that as the court declared in May last that a living wage was £3 18s 9d per week, and has reduced that rate now by a further 3s, leaving the living wage to-day at £3 15s 9d, it is unfair to award the waterside workers a rate that will not enable them to earn this average wage. UNROUND OALCUL A TIO N. '• The statement that the average wage tinder the old rate including overtime and special rates was less than £3 7s (id is not correct, because Mr Roberts’s method of calculating this average as disclosed by his address during the Arbitration Court proceedings is quite unsound. During these proceedings it was shown that the- average hours worked by men who may be regarded as permanent waterside workers, that is who constantly follow the occupation of waterside workers as distinct from those who work only for short periods on the waterfront, was 38.8 hours per week in Wellington, and during the vyear ended August 3rd. 1921, averagb of 1423 men earned an average wage of £1 19s 8d per week. Working under the new award, at ordinary rates only (2s 2d-per hour), men working 38 hours per week would earn * £4 2s 4d, and this wage would be pro- | portionately higher for all men who > worked at. overtime rates or at special 1 work rates. To arrive at the result ! given by Mr Roberts it is clear that he i must have included in his average the I whole, or nearly the whole of the memj bers of the Waterside Workers’ l nion. • although many of these men work for j only brief periods on the waterfront, and cannot in any sense be regarded as permanent waterside workers.”