WATERSIDE LABOUR

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 23, 21 October 1921, Page 3

WATERSIDE LABOUR

CONTROL ON THE WHARVES DISCUSSED BY HARBOURS CONFERENCE The Question of the engagement and control of labour on the waterfront was discussed by the Harbours Association Conference yesterday, when it. received a deputation from the hew Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation, consisting of Messrs. L. Glover (president), J. Roberts (secretary), and J. G. Bruce (secretary of the Wellington Waterside Workers Union). • , . ... Mr (Roberts said he considered control of waterside-Jabour the most; m portant matter with '' bi vears boards had to deal. hoi fifty sears there had been an attempt todo away wifh whnt mierht be termed tnc C/*vBu<ii ness of watTrside labour ” The waterside workers themselves had been tryma to improve the position, and he had pointed out that at all conferences more P. e .L m 'U 1 ' ency had been advocated XV hat « d the employers want casual labour torr dc cause it was cheaner and that was why it was there. Fully 98 per cent, of the workers on the wharves did not want it for it led to a largo number of name! appearing on the union roll when there, was only employment for half of them. The 1 waterside workers wanted the whole of the work to be done on the tive system, but when this proposal was placed before the shipowners they would not agree to it. It was suggested that there should be a board, consisting of four employers’ representatives, and three waterside workers, to control the Joadinc and unloading of *hiP B tonnage rates, or such terms as might be agreed upon The scheme (which he detailed Au length) was not accepted by the shipowners. Any scheme, to be a success, would have to have the co-operation of the men employed to carry it through. -It was all right to say they would adopt some scheme, but to carry it out efficiently the men must be a partner just as much as the employer.

Joint Control. The scheme outlined by the chairman oil the nrevioua day might be worked .all right, but he pointed out that a similar system was not a success in Antwerp and Boston. In Copenhagen joint control came nearest to success. If the men were not employed on ships, they could be employed on other work The committeo that took control must have charge of the whole work. The employers hi New Zealand had attempted, to make work on the waterfront more casual, and the harbour boards were not helping the workers. All the union asked was that, the men should be treated properly, and their lives made easier. They believed that a proper system could be devised, if the employers would only .get down to practical tacts.'•ana make an honest effort to meet the situation. Mr. Bruce said that for some years past local bodies had been continually passing resolutions about revolutionising the conditions on the waterfront. They never considered that the worker was trying to do this too. The Wellington Harbour Board had always treated the men better than the shipowners, but various interests clashed Any scheme, to be successful, must have the support of the workers. The Minister of Labour, ’ it was stated, had a scheme which he proposed to present to Parliament, but no one knew what it was. The waterside workers had for three years studied the scheme outlined by; Mr. Roberts, but when it was mooted the Press of New Zealand ran it down, and never gave it a chance. They stated that the men wanted to take away the industry from the owners. He pointed out that at present there was a tendency for owners who wanted to discharge their steamers oulckly to acquire a surplus of labour around their foreman. Each company had its little surplus, anti if these men engaged with someone else they would not get back with their former employer If any scheme was brought before a harbour board it should be submitted to a committee, which would include represtatives of the workers. Their side should not be ignored.

Casual Labour. In reply to Mr. A. E. Jull (Napier), Mr. Roberts said that a sudden transition from casual labour to permanent labour could not be accomplished There was no scheme at present for doing away with casual labour. Under the proposals of the union, the distribution of labour would be placed in the hands of officers. The handling of the goods by companies on the wharves would be done away with, and anyone requiring labour would have to apply to the central committee. Mr. Jull: 11 100 extra men camo on they would not get a job? Mr. Roberts: No. Some system of restriction would be placed on men coining on the wharves .In .reply to (further queetions, Mr. Roberts said that the union was opposed to the licensing of workers, as it would be an injustice -to them. To license a man so that he could earn his living on the wharf was not/in accordance with British justice. The preference clause would be a full restriction. Mr. Bruce, in answer to Mr. Jull. said that his statement regarding some employers keeping a surplus of labour was triie. He had known men to be afraid to ask for work from other employers "Every man’s work from that company depends on tho foreman’s smile," ’he added. The deputation then withdrew. Mr. E. J. Carr (Auckland) moved: "That the Harbours Act be amended to provide for the licensing of waterside workers. tallymen, and carters." He said that this was no new thing It was done in England, and he believed the bulk cf the men would welcome it here, as it would keep undesirable people away from the wharves.—The remit was lost, without further discussion. Mr. O. 13. Daniell (Wellington) moved: "That ths conference reaffirm its resolution of the seventh conference reading: 'That the Government be approached with a request that the Harbours Act be amended in such a marker as to empower harbour .boards to employ, control, and manage all labour required in the loading and. unloading of ships, and for waterside work generally, whether on wharves or on vessels.'" He pointed out that at the previous conference the remit was carried by a majority of one vote, but after three years’ experience he hoped that there would be a more decisive vote. He was pleased to hear the views of the deputation. He did not see eye to eye with the shipowners regarding the employment of labour He did not think it was right that men should be kept around the wharves all day when they could he told at 9 a.m. that their .services were not required. The men had a right to be treated fairly. The shinning companies wanted to coiitrol the labour, and there was ample evidence to support what I 'Mr. Bruce had said regarding companies maintaining a surplus. The Harbour Board, ho thought, was more competent to control the labour than the shipping companies or the union, and the hoards should be entrusted with it Special representation on the harbour boards should bo done away with, for tho companies were represented and the men were not, except as citizens. It was advisable in the best interests cf the producers and the country that the boards should control the labour on the wharves.

Effect on other Trades. Mr. Juil seconded the motion, and raid that this was the most important question that the. conference had had before it. The position of waterside labour at present had a most demoralising effect upon labour throughout the country, because there was a tendency to increase the number of men on the books of the union for the purpose of giving expedition to the shipping interests—the loading and unloading of ships. As a result, a large number of men were only working two-thirds of the time, and they went, to the Arbitration Court, and on account of the broken time said they were entitled to more pay. Men were attracted from other trades to the wharves \b.v the high wages and casual einnloyTnent Labour throughout the .Dominion was in consequence affected, and the cost increased. Unless harbour boards were prepared to accept responsibility in a higher and more thorough manner, they were only trifling with the question. He was satisfied that beneficial results would accrue if legislative authority was given in the direction sought, leaving to the board to put into operation a system that would diminish unemployment and establish a. system of permanent workers. The scheme proposed by tilt waterside workers still left casual labour as it was to-day. The chairman (Mr. J. (1 Harkness) said that they wanted stationary power to c/ntrol all labour, and if they got that he thought the shipowners and the workers would fall into line. The boards had the interests of the men at heart, and he asked delegates to carry the resolution.

Mr. E. Maxwell (New Plymouth) onnosod the motion, as he thought there would ho trouble between the board and the shipowners. The introduction of this class of labour to the boards' permanent staff was not desirable. Mr. E <!. Carr (Auckland) said the scheme put forward by the deputation wa.s far ahead of the remit Mr. IL Holland (Lytteton) opposed the motion, as it would only involve the boards in any trouble that occurred between the men and the shipowners After further discussion the motion was carried by 19 votes to 13 The conference decided that in the event of the necessary power being granted hv

tho Government, the executive should be empowered to confer with the shipowners and the Waterside Workers’ Federation forthwith, and take the necessary steps to give effect, to the •'remit.