WATERFRONT OPERATIONS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 73, 20 December 1920, Page 6

WATERFRONT OPERATIONS

WELFAEE LEAGUE'S REPLY. Sir,—A correspondent und|;r the nom de plump "In the Dark" writes on the above subject, putting certain questions to tha league. After carefully reading his letter we takei it to bo what is commonly known as "a draw." We enn quite beiievo that the writer is, as he "greatly interested in the pros ami com of the suggested co-operative labour association." It is strange that Ming so interested he dors not discuss the merits or demerits' of tliat scheme, but seeks to concentrate} the discussion wholly upon the question of permanent labour. The league is not disposed, to resist anyone in presenting the issue as if it were this proposed scheme versus a complete system of permanent labour. It is_ good ibusinc6s to deal with one qu&stion at a time, and we consider that the proposed scheme should be judged on its Dwnts as a distinct issue. If your correspondent desires to discuss the question of permanent labour for tlfc waterfront as a separate issuo, wo liav.j 110 objection to taking part in such a discussion. We know that the general question of permanent versus casual labour is one involving many considerations industrial, political, _ and social, but other present-day issues are in the same category, and yet they must not bo shirked moijjly becausp they are difficult to 1 solve. From the framing of your _ correspondent's questions we are of opinion that ho is not "in the dark," but could probably answer the question* just as ifaadily as he put them. The league, however, does not run away from questions directly put, and we reply to thn four put to us. Our answer to number 1 is that we have not advoqafcd a specific permanent scheme, but have so far simply discussed the gonoral question. Our actual knowledge of waterside conditions, though not complefc, ts as our publications havo proved. The application of a scheme, howc/vcr, would not rest upon our knowledge, but that of those appointed to administer it. Question 2: Wo have examined estimates of the* shipping authorities as to the number, of men who Would be required on a basis of permanent employment, but that aspect lias to b/j considered in relation to the fact that the greater numbers when casually employed nave to toe paid 6ucli rates as will keep them when they are not working, but merely in reserve. Number 3 is a question for the shipping 'authorities to answer, as they have tho data at hand, but the suggestions conveyed in it that the industry is wholly "spasmodic" and that permanent hands would have to be paid during lost time, whilst tho casual system does not <ntail any cost in that way, are not facts. ■ As to 4, wo ag£:in point out that tho league has not advocated a specific permanent scheme, as the question suggests. We liavfo information regarding tentative schemes tried elsewhere, but are not conversapt with tho circumstrinflis under which they were tried. It requires but littlo thought to realise that a scheme might not bo- successful elsewhnre, and yet might be properly applicable io New Zealand, just as methods (ire applied in Wellington which aiv not adopted at sonio other port within tho Dominion.

In conclusion, let us say that we liavo met with the argument beJfln> that those not intimately conversant with the facts of this industry fire merely expressing personal inclination. This argument would carry morfe weight if the shipping people who possess knowledge of tho facts presented the data publicly and proved that they are not moved in any respect by personal inclinations.—l am, etc., ARTHUR HARPER, Secretary.