The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1921. THE WATERFRONT PROBLEM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 152, 23 March 1921, Page 4

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1921. THE WATERFRONT PROBLEM

The shortcomings of the system of casual labour on the wharves of the Dominion, very plainly exposed in the facts which were brought out at the annual meeting of tne Harbour Board on Monday and to which prominence was given in our columns yesterday, constitute a problem which imperatively demands practical attention. In the existing conditious of waterfront industry, commerce, both inward and outward, is being strangled, and all sections of the population are thing penalised more and more heavily as time goes on. While these conditions tend in a material degree to impoverish the community and to dislocate shipping industry, they must at the same time be in the last degree unsatisfactory to a great majority of the workers engaged in cargo handling. It is only reasonable to suppose that most of these workers would greatly prefer reasonably' regular and assured employment on fair terms to the unsettling conditions in which they are employed at present. It is absolutely in the interests of all concerned to bring about change on these lines, and though the problem involved is somewhat complex it need not defy solution if an honest combined effort is made to solve it The leading aim obviously must bo to modify the casual nature of waterfront employment and establish it as far as possible on a regular and permanent basis. In this connection, the Welfare League has performed a timely service in directi ing attention to what has been accomplished in Sydney in stabilising and improving the conditions of waterside labour, with great benefit to the workers concerned, their employers, and the public. In any purposeful attempt to remedy and adjust the conditions of waterside industry in this country very useful guidance may be obtained by considering the system and methods of the Sydney Overseas Shipping Labour Bureau. All who are familial’ with the origin of the. bureau and its history to date know that it has been highly successful. It was formed four years ago, primarily in order that the loyalists who refused to take part in the 1.917 strike in New South Wales might be guaranteed employment. In operation, however, it has not only served this initial purpose, but has established new standards of waterfront employment which arc a very great improvement not only on what went before, but upon the conditions which still apply to the, working of inter-State shipping in the chief New South Wales port.

In its essential features the bureau system involves a co-opera-tive agreement between the workers concerned and their employers, under the supervision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, The workers arc organised on their own account in "tne Permanent and Casual Waterside Labourers'

Union,” and as a union negotiate in the ordinary way with their employers. In addition, however, the organisation and distribution of work is directed by a Labour Control Committee. A proportion of the men connected with the bureau are employed as permanent hands—that is to say they receive a weekly wage whether work is available or not. The remaining members of the working staff are employed as casuals, but on a basis which relieves them entirely of the necessity of waiting around the wharves on the off-chance of getting a job. Under a simple system of registration, they know in good time beforehand when and where employment will next be available. In consideration of their continuous employment, permanent men are paid at a somewhat lower rate per hour than the casuals, but the bureau charges stevedores the hourly casual rate on all hands engaged, and also charges shipowners a small percentage on stevedores’ accounts. The revenue thus derived not only covers administrative expenses, but provides profits which are disbursed in providing such comforts and conveniences for the members of the Permanent and Casual Waterside Labourers’ Union as dressing, bathing, and sleeping accommodation (the last for the benefit of men who cease work at an hour when it would be inconvenient to go home) and the provision of light refreshments. Full proof is available of the completely satisfactory way in which the Ifctreau system has worked. It speaks for itself that since the bureau was established • four years ago there has not been a single stoppage of work in the important section of waterfront industry to which it applies. The benefits to the workers concerned were conclusively demonstrated in November last? Early in that month, the Permanent and Casual V aterside Labourers’ Union entered into a new agreement with the employers, under which wages were substantially increased. Shortly afterwards the members of the Sydney branch of the Australian Waterside Wcikers’ Federation (to whom the 'bureau system does not apply) struck for a new agreement. Their demand was for the same rates of nay as had been conceded to the bureau workers. The latter, however, in addition to these rates, aie assured of stable and settled employment, and enjoy the important supplementary benefits which have Ween mentioned. It is apparent tout in any attempt to reform the. conditions of waterfront industry in this country much is to be learned fiorn the- example set in Sydney. It is not, of course, suggested that the system and methods adopted in the New South Wales port should be slavishly copied, but the leading features of the bureau organisation . certainly seem to be worthy rf a trial in the ports of the Dominion. A hopeful step in this direction would be taken if the Arbitration Court were asked to bring the parties together with a view to the institution in New Zealand ports—a beginning, no doubt, should be made in the principal ports—of a flexible system of labour organisation and control broadly on the lines which have been developed so successfully in Sydney. We are inclined to agree with the Welfare League that such a system should be cut clearly apart from the port administration of the harbour boards. It is, of course, indispensable to the Successful and satisfactory working of any scheme of waterfront labour control that the interests of the general public should be adequately safeguarded, and this condition is much more likely to be satisfied under the supervision of the Arbitration Court than if control were vested in harbour boards, which are liable at times to be swayed by sectional opinion. It is certainly desirable that waterfront employment should be organised as far as possible on a permanent basis, and that, as in Sydney, the balance of intermittent casual work should be systematised and such conveniences provided as will make for comfort and smooth working. Probably organisation on these lines would best be promoted by setting up in the various ports joint committees on which the public as well as waterside workers and their emnloyers would be represented. and there docs not seem to be any doubt that the Arbitration Court is the right authority to bring the parties together and initiate reform on these lines. The Court, of course, would have, tjo be commissioned specially for the task, but the departure from established routine which is entailed ought to weigh very lichtly against the prospect of rectifying conditions of waterfront industry which threaten if they are neglected to work out in disaster to the whole Dominion.