CONTRACT OR DAY LABOUR?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1473, 22 June 1912, Page 9

CONTRACT OR DAY LABOUR?

EXPERT OPINIONS.

THE TWO METHODS CONTRASTED.

Tho deputation which recently approached tho Minister for Public Works from tho Wellington Building Trades' Federation, raised a very big question, which will not, in all probability, l;e settled for good and all on a Ministerial decision one way or tho other. The deputation asked that tho work would ho carried out by day labour, and not by contract. As thero seemed to bo doubts in tho Minister's mind on the point as to which system of carrying out work was most economical (consistent with efficiency) somo opinions fere gathered yestorday which may • shed somo light on tho subject. "Erankly," said Mr. William Turnbull, ono of our leading architects, "I do not believe in doing work by day labour, and do certainly not think that such a work as tho now llouso of Parliament should bo built under that system. _ Tolstoy said tho governments and municipalities were nothing more than giant unions, formed to oppress individuals. Wo go to school for education (which costs tho Government something over <EBUO,OOO per annum), and when wo look for an avenue to follow in lifo's work and decido to beconio a builder and contractor, architect, or anything you like, something liko . this comes along to attempt to destroy individuality. Tho builder grades himself, ho rises atovo his fellows because oi lus superior capacity, tact, command over men, and his ability to guide them m their work. By contemplating tlio daylabour system, tho Government is showing a waifl of respect towards these men, who may have invested a good (leal of money in plant in ,order to bo in a position to tender for tho work offering.

"A Very Costly Way." "I am strongly of tho belief that day labour is a yery costly way of doing work, particularly Government work, where the discriminating influence of a man with responsibilities, and ono who knows men and his work is needed to do it well. That man—tho contractor—states his prit.e before lio starts, and looks to make a profit by the system lie w*orks under, and the experience and discretion ho has in tho business. Working by day labour things can be done slovenly, and then takon to pieces and dono over again, and it is all. in the price. It would bo an extra with a contractor, and rightly so, as lie has to guard against and pay tor any mistakes ho may make. On a day labour iob it does not matter so much. The system of day labour /is subject' to abuses• that do not exist under contract—tlie weekly timesheet covers it all up. In a contract job somebody is immediately _ blameable, but on tho other hand alterations can be made, as mistakes are discovered, and the cost of mistakes is never shown in the total. My experience of tlio day labour svstem is that it obscures mistakes and shelters incompetents. "Thero is a special reason why the prico of work done by day labour by the government and private contract should not be compared. Ono reason is that tlio Government remit duty on building material for tbeir own jobs, and, consequently, that amount, always very considerable, never appeai'3 against the cost of a building as it must when built by a private contractor. Further, tho Government can always get officers from various Departments to take a hand in the work witliout tho cost of such work being charged up against tho cost of the building. Getting such work'done on tlio cheap makes a considerable difference. "Tho request for day labour can. hardly bo based on tho belief that better work is dono and more economy practised under that system. Look at tho old contractors. Survey their work in this city, and yon will find that is not surpassed -today. And that work wa3 dono without all this inspeotion and endless restrictions. They wero men of honesty and integrity in -tbeir business. Where is the Government •to got men to .look after their work (day labour) as -those contractors did theirs? Who aro they going to got? Who can. handlo the men, measure up the timber, and lay out tlio work? I say that the Government cannot • get such men. and therefore they would have to do with men that are less competent, and take the consequences of less satisfactory work. On day labour, with Government jobs, there is always a tendency to employ moro men than are required— that is a form of abuse the system is open to. Under - contract, however, tho Department bas to have a definite scheme and a precise specification to accompany it. The contract price is known. before the job is started, but on day labour ono 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 hero and there, it never lasts Jong—the return is ever to tho contract system. All the most famous architect? in tho world are opposed to day labour, and that it is cheaper is a fallacy which has been often oxploded."

Master Builder's Opinion. Ifr. Alex. Campbell, president of tlio Wellington Master Builders' Association, lias no doubts whatever on tlio score as to which system of building is best for the mail, tlio company, or tlio Government wlio has to pay.

"It is incomprehensible to me why' tho Builders' Union's men ro to the Government and ,ask it to build the new Parliamentary Buildings by day labour. AVliy do they do it—why? Our experience is that after a man lias been a fewweeks in tho Government employ lie begins to drop his subscriptions to tho union, and after a bit he falls out altogether, for the simple reason that the Government never works under an award, and no matter what happens, nothing in tho way of redress can be gained by tho worker. If that is tho caso (and it is), why does the union trouble about this day labour business? Simply because it siyes them better times —an easier job. With their awards and restrictions the wages are forced up, with private individuals the Government is asked to pav the same wages, and then day labour is asked for. There is 110 incentivo for men to work hard when employed 011 day labour. ■ The man who does Work really hard is usually given a polite hint to ease off, and if he doesn't he is made pretty uncoraforable. Tlio conditions must be so at day labour for it is natural, I suppose, for a man to make his job hang out as long as possible. Tho reason that it is so is that in the case- of day labour there is 110 ono actually in authority—no one who Ins not got someone over him. You can go right on until you get to the Under-Secre-tary, who perhaps is a fmo clerk organiser, yet is absolutely incapable of exerting authority with the tradesmen working 011 a job. Then, as you know as well as I, o. foreman or clerk of works hesitates to 'sack' a man if lie is incompetent nowadays on a Government .iob becauso the man might go direct to the' Minister and make trouble. That is an evil that bas grown up and is fostered by the day labour system. Tn the caso of a contract it is very different—the contractor is immediately and directly responsible and is 011 the spot to see that the right materials and good work is being done in the proper manner. If a iii-aii is incompetent or lazy, out he goes. All wc have to meet is the union, :ind it usually knows the man as well as we do.

"Another point is that you never know where you nro respecting cost on n dnylabonr job. bei'anse in the ea=e of tlie Onvrrninent, for in-tnnce, officers are employed from various Departments- 011 tliL' job. v. inise salaries are never charged up again't it, And the building materials are admitted duty free, as is said to have been the case on the jamb imcd in Government House. T don't think any of tiio Government officers would build for Iheniselves by day labour—it's too riskv for anyone but the Government. Find out about the Government Printing Oilier— that should settle the Government. 011 the point at once."