The Dominion THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1920. SECRECY ON THE WATERFRONT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 46, 18 November 1920, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1920. SECRECY ON THE WATERFRONT

Up to the present the shipowners and waterside workers who met in conference yesterday on tho subject of wages have not thought it worth while even to take any notice of the reasonable suggestion that the public should bo allowod to know what . is going on and what is proposed. The conference adjourned yesterday, and it is understood that it is ' to meet again, but the only explicit detail of information allowed to escape is that the watersiders are i asking that their agreement should be reviewed "in light of,the recent increase in the cost of living as revealed by the Government Statistician's figures." Tho term of the agreement, which was concluded . this year _ and took effect (by. a retrospective provision) as from last February, does not expire). until the end of next year. The possible scope of discussion, "unless the, agreement is to be flouted, is therefore very narrow, and it cannot be suggested that there is any justification for secrecy. On whatever grounds it. is based, a demand for increased wages on the, waterfront is. a matter in which the public are quite as much interested as shipowners and waterside workers! , .If thero are fair grounds for such an increase, the parties now conferring have everything to gain from making them known. The secrecy of the present proceedings implies that shipowners _ and waterside workers are alike intent on settling the question with an entire disregard of public interest—they have themselves . and their own methods to thank if this supposition does them any injustice. The fact that tho intention to hold the conference was not generally known probably accounts for the fact that widespread public protests have not been made against this attempt to again deal in secret with a question which vitally concerns- tho whole community. _ Business people evidently will incur a heavy responsibility if they silently tolerate such methods, sine© they may presently find themselves .called upon to pass on to the public increased charges which no one has attempted to subject to impartial scrutiny. On this ground alone strong and united protests ought to be made by all chambers of commerce, industrial associations, and similar bodies' against the secret procicd- [ ings of a conference which may dci cide to increase tho costs of carga handling in all Dominion ports. - Primary _ also will he foolish if they .passively tolerate tho present attitude of the shipowners and watersiders. Already heavily penalised by high shipping freights, and with prices for their export produce falling or threatening to fall in oversea markets, any increase in the local costs of cargo handling is a matter of serious importance from their standpoint, and they evidently owe it to themselves to _ resist' any' such increase until it is shown tb be just and necessary^ It is, of course, right that the wages paid in various occupations should be adjusted as fairly as possible to the cost of living, but any such adjustment should in the case of any industry affecting the general public be made openly, and with the facts fully disclosed. As matters stand, watersiders are highly paid in comparison with their fellow-workers, and the fact that their employment is casual is largely offset by their fairly frequent opportunities of earning such spec-' ial and overtime rates as are within the reach of few skilled tradesmen. No objection could be raised to the payment of high wages on the waterfront'or elsewhere if there turn in service rendered were commensurate, but it is an unfortunate fact that increases in wages on the waterfront have been followed by a serious lowering of standards of efficiency in cargo handling. It is notorious that in spit'e 'of the increased ■ use of mechanical appliances the 'loading or unloading of a ship now takes much longer than it did a few years ago, when the ruling rates of waterfront wages were much' lower than they are to-day. The cost_ of this inefficiency and waste of time, as well as that of wageincreases, , falls on the consuming public. Unless they wdsh it to bo understood that they arc absolutely indifferent to the rights and interests'of tho rest of .the community, the parties to the waterside agreement are bound to deal openly and on the merits of the case not only with the wages demand now raised, but with the directlyrolated question of labour eflicicncy on the waterfront. Electing instead to sit behind closed doors, they invito the charge that they have -no thought of fairly considering these questions, and arc seeking only, for their own gain and immediate convenience, to impose on the community further burdens which it would be impossible to justify. At any time such aims and methods would call for conat a t'imc when more or less serious economic tension is in prospect they certainly ought not to bo tolerated.' Looking broadly at the economic situation and_ outlook, it_ is evident that the policy of pursuing high prices with wage-increases has been carried almost to its possible limits, and that it has become imperative, if depression and unemployment are to bo averted, to concentrate instead upon bringing about a steady fall in prices, _ together with increased efficiency in all forms of industry and industrial servicc. An un-. justified increase in the high wages already ruling on the waterfront would scriously_ impede sound progress on these lines, and if thero is any justification for such an increase it is for the shipowners and watersiders to coma out into the open and demonstrate tho fact.