CONTRACT OR DAY LABOUR?

West Coast Times, 26 June 1912, Page 4

CONTRACT OR DAY LABOUR?

EXPERT OPINIONS. 'THE TWO METHODS CONTRASTED. WELLINGTON, June 21. The deputation which recently approached the Minister for Public Works from the Wellington Building, Ti ados’ Federation, raised a very big question, which will not, in all probability, bo settled for good and all on a Ministcrtial decision one way or the other. The deputation asked that the work be carried out by day labour, and mi 1 by contract. As there seemed to he doubts in the Minister’s mind, cn the point as to which system of carrying out work was most economical (consistent with eflicieney) some opinions wore gathered yesterday which shod some light on the subject. “Frankly,” said Mr. William Turnbull, one of our leading architects, “I do not believe in wofdc by day labour, and do certainly not think that such a work as the New Parliament House should bo built under that system. Tolstoy said that the governments and municipalities wore nothing more than giant unions, formed to oppress individuals. We go to school fer education (which costs the Government, something over £BOO,OOO per annum), and when we look for an avenue to follow in life’s work, and decide to hccumo a builder and a contractor ,architect, or anything you like, something, like this comes along to attempt to destroy individuality. The builder grades filmself, lie rises above his fellows, because of his superior capacity, tact, command over men, and his ability to guide them in their work. Ry contemplating the day labour system, tiro Government is showing a want of respect towards those men, who may have'invested a good (leal of money in plant in order to be in a position to tender for work offering.

“A VERY COSTLY WAY.” ”1 am strongly of belief that day labour is a very costly way of doing work, particularly Government work, where the discriminating; influence of a man with responsibilities, and one who knows men and his work is needed to do it well. That man—the contractor—states his price before bo .starts, and looks to make a profit by the system be works under, andvtho experience and discretion be bus in the business. Working by day labour things can lie dfme slovenly, and thou token to- pieces and done over again, and it is all in the price. Tt would he an extra with the contractor, and rightly so, as lie has to guard against and pay for any mistakes lie may make. On a day labour job it does not matter so much. The system of day labour is subject to abuses that do not exist under contract—the weekly time sheet covers it all up. In a contract job somebody is immediately blamcable, but on the other hand alterations can be made, as mistakes are discovered, and the cost of mistakes is never known in the total. My experience of the day labour system is that it obscures mistakes and shelters incompetents. ‘•There is a special reason why the price of work done by day labour by the Government and private contract, should not be compared. One reason is that the Government remit duty on .building material for their own jobs, and, consequently, that amount, always very considerable, never appears against the cost of a building as it must when built by a private contractor. Further, the Government can always get officers from various departments to take a hand in the work without the cost of such work being charged tip against the cost of the building. Getting such work done on the cheap makes a considerable difference.

‘ The request for day labour can hardly be based on the belief that better work is done and more economy practised under the system. Look at the old contractors. Survey their work in this city, and yon will find that it is not surpassed to-day. And that work was done without all this inspection and endless restrictions. They were men of honesty and integrity in their business. AYhere is the Government to get men to look after their work (day labour) as those contractors did theirs ? Who are they going to get P Who can handle the men, measure up the timber, and lay out the work ? I say that the Govj eminent cannot get such men, and therefore they will have to do with men who are less competent, and take the consequences of less satisfactory work. On day labour, with Government jobs, there is always a tendency to employ more men than are required—that.is a form of abuse that the system is open to. Under contract, however, the Department has to have a definite scheme and a precise specification to accompany it. The con-

trad price is' known before the job is started ,(mt on day labour it never knows the cost until it is finished. The system has never flourished—-the day labour system is as' old as the hills, but though it crops out here and there, it never last's long—the return is over to the contract system. All the most famous architects in the world arc opposed to day labour, and t-hat is cheaper is a fallacy which ha's been often exploded.”

MASTER BUILDER’S OPINION. Air. Alex. Campbell, president of the Wellington Master Builders’ Association, lias no doubts whatever on the score' as to which system of building is best for the man, or the Government who has to pay.

‘■lt is incomprehensible to mo why the Builders’ Union’s men go to the Government and ask it to build the now Parliamentary Buildings by day labour. Why do they do it—why P Our experience is that after a man has boon a few weeks in the Government’s employ he begins to drop his subscriptions to the Union, and after a bit ho falls out altogether, for the simple reason that the Government never works under an award, and no matter what happens, nothing in'the way of redress can bo gained by the worker. If that is the case (and it is) why docs the union trouble about this day labour business ? Simply because it gives them better times—an easier job. With their awards and restrictions the wages are forced up, with private individuals the Government is asked to pay the same, wages, and then day labour is asked for. There is no incentive for men to work hard when employed on day labour. The man who does really work hard is given a polite hint to ease off, and if he doesn’t he is made pretty uncomfortable. The conditions must bo so at day labour, for it is natural, I suppose, for a man to make his job hang our as long as possible. The reason that it is so is that in the rase of day labour there is no one actually in authority—no one who has not got someone over him. Yon can go right on until yon got to the Under-Sccret-ary, who perhaps is a fine clerk organiser, ,'yet is absolutely incapable of

exerting authority with the tradesmen working on a job. Then, you know, as well as I, storeman or clerk of works hesitates to ‘ sack ’ a man if ho is incompetent nowadays on a Government job because the man might go direct to the Minister and make trouble. 'That is an evil that has grown up and is fostered by the day labour svstem. In the case of a contract it

is very different.—the contractor i,s immediately and directly responsible and is on the spot to see that the right materials and good work is being done in the proper manner. If a man is incompetent or laxy, out, lie goes. All wc have to moot is the union, and it usually knows the man ns well as wc do. “ Another point is that yon never know whore you are respecting cost on a day labour job, because in the case of the Government for instance, officers are employed from various Departments on the job, whose salaries are never charged up against it, and the building, materials are admitted duty free, as is said to bo the case on the jarrah needed in Government House. I don’t think any of the Government officers would build for themselves by day labour—it’s too risky for anyone but the Government. Find out about the Government printing office. That should settle the Government on the point at once.”