THE WATERSIDE DISPUTE

Waikato Times, Volume 94, Issue 14598, 23 February 1921, Page 4

THE WATERSIDE DISPUTE

ff a crisis, by whatever term il ma bo described, should occur on Hi waterfront it cnn hardly be said that i has been precipitated. 11 has boei threatening for some time past. II origin is in the question whether indus trial agreements are to be carried out or whether tne period of their observ juice is in In"' dependent entirely on Ih caprice of the parties to them. The in dustrial agreement under wh'ch wor on the wharves is performed through out the Dominion expires on the las day of this year. Under it wages ar lixed al figures which cannot be licli to be illiberal. So attractive have the; been regarded that tradesmen havi been tempted to lay aside their owi --killed occupations in order to seel work on the wharves. The question however, whether a cost-of-living bonus should he added to the pre scribed wages has been under discus sion between the officials of the waterside workers' organisation and the employers. An offer of a bonus of i penny an hour has bi en made by th< employers, although they believe it. t' ho in excess of the amoun| which, ->i the basis of the Government Statistician's figures, is necessary to rover anj increase in ihe cost of living. Tha offer, which apparently represents themployers' last word on the point, has been rejected. It has been met by reprisals mi the waterfront which are obviously directed* to compel the em ployers hi increase their offer beyoni the amount that is held by them to constitute a more than adequate bonus The reprisals have taken Ihe form ol "nin-prleking" devices which resolve themselves generally into n refusal tf cvork overtime. The industrial agreement contains an express recognilior thai overtime may be, an<\ is, necessary, ind any difference of opinion respecting (lie principle of overtime is specifically excluded from consideration in Ihe operation of the agreement. Tin "deration of Waterside Workers' I'nlons and the respective unions ari ■int only committed to the recognition if overtime, but are also pledged to se--,ire (he recognition of overtime by heir members. The refusal of overhue liy the direct instruction of the ■"ederation or of any of the unions vould, therefore, be ■, distinct breach 0/ he agreement. II is pretended, how■ver, that the refusal of overtime is the ict of individual members of the minus, inspired by ■, sudden and simulaneous searching of their hearts re- ! eeting the principle of overtime. The iretenee might ne plausible if it were 10l so very transparent. However nueh Ihe Federation and the unions nn> seid; |o dissociate themselves from he action of their members, discerning ienp|e will refuse to believe that the ndividual acts of Ihe waterside workers vere prompted only by Hie awakening d' their consciences to a sense of the nischievnusness of overtime. The ore suggestion of anything of the kind • palpably absurd, tf i! were nol so, he absence of any apparent effort on he part of the executive of the Waterside Workers' Federation to seure aomplianee by their members with he terms of the ncrecnie.nt is snfllcienl

to enable the public to f, rm il s own conclusions. The refusal of overtfthe must be regarded by all intelligent people as a violation of the agreement. It Is in these circumstances that the employers decided that, in the event of a continued refusal of overtime, thera should be no further engagements of labour until guarantees were given by the Federation and the unions that tho work on the waterfront should be normally maintained. This Is a drastio step to take, but it is clearly impossib.'o that the intolerable practice of the observance of agreements only so long and in so far as is considered convenien' should be brought to an end.