SAVING LABOUR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 154, 19 March 1918, Page 7

SAVING LABOUR

POSITION ON WELLINGTON

WHARVES

6BSOLETE METHODS RETAINED

The use of: labour-saving appliances | on the Wellington wharves was 0110 of] tho matters, mentioned. at the annual; meeting of the Harbour Board yester- j day. lie chairman (Mr. C. E. Daniell) said that durin" the past year efforts had been made by the Harbour Board .to improve the facilities on the „ wharves. The war was increasing the value of man-power, and it" was more -than, ever necessary that .the highest efficiency should be secured from thq. labour employed. The board had de- 4 tided to insta) electric''cranes in tho sheds, but the machinery could not be secured, and it appeared that tho work .would have to stand over until after tho war. About two years ago the water-

side workers had complained of the conditions of the appliancos for the handling of £oal. As a result of this grabs had been installed, but it was. disappointing , to find that owing to s< me differences of opinion between the shipphi]* companies and the workers iheso appliances had not been used. Coal was still being handled by manual

labour, although the grabs could do the work more efficiently. , Mr. W. Cable: Are they not v6in£ the grabs? Mr. Daniell: "They use them occasionally, with three or four gangs working alongside. There is three times as much labour used in handling coal in Wellington as there ought to be. I do hopo that as a result of our committee's deliberations we shall bo able to achieve something in the direction of unified control, without contending parties coming-in and wasting the country's money and products." 11 was not a fact that tli9 grabs spoiled the coal. The amount of coal handled in a year at Wellington was about half a million tons. The angineor had bc-en preparing plans for bins that could bo' used in conjunction with tlio grabs. It should be the policy of tho board to save labour on the wharves.

Mr. It. Fletcher,. M.P., said that the board must not stop the introduction of labour-saving appliances becauso a few men grumbled. Individuals must not bo allowed to block progress.

Captain M'Arthur said he did rot think the shipping companies were to blame for tho failure to make full use of labour-saving appliances. They had many difficultias to cops with in tho attitude of Labour. The companies wero working under certain awardsj and it was necessary .for them to get the work done with as few hitches as possible. He believed that tho appliances which had been installed would bo of great value in the future.

Mr. Daniell remarked that the shipping companies were money-making concerns of a. very successful kind. They did not co-opera to with the board fully, and they used labour just as they used it in Colombo and cthor Eastern ports whore it was cheap and plentiful. He knew that the workers were willing to encourage the ;.ieo ol labour-saving .appliances. The/ recognised that the machinery was there to stay. But they asked why iho employer should get all the benefit of labour-saving appliances and the worker none. That seemed to be a fair question. Labour, as he understood the position, was not directly opposed to the use of machinery, but weuted to share the bcuMit.s of :ts use.