WATERSIDE STEVEDORING SCHEME

Hokitika Guardian, 22 January 1921, Page 4

WATERSIDE STEVEDORING SCHEME

WANTED PROMPT PUBLIC ACTION

THE CRITICISM FULLY

JUSTIFIED

(Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare

league.)

When the Welfare League published the Draft of a proposed N.S. Co-Opera-tive Stevedoring Association, on the bid December 1920, with its criticism of , same there were some who thought the League "'as rather drastic in its comments. From what has since transpired the League has been fully justified in the action taken. We learn that members of the joint Conference (Shipowners and Watersid-d-s) have been sore over the League’s action im publishing; they evidently wished to keep the public in the dark. One Shipowner stated “it was the work of a traitor to give the co-operative scheme to the Welfare League.” Well. [ we may say that no one connected with , the shipping interests gave the copy -o j the League. It was our own special ; Mahatma who supplied us in strict | loyalty to the public who were entitled ' to know. ; Some Marbor Hoards, Industrial As j sociations and Chambers of Commerce j before the holidays, discussed the pro- j posed scheme in a rather general way j Some decided to take further action j later. We want to inform thorn now 1 that if action is not taken very prompt lv it may prove to be too late. We understand if tire Watersiders Federation accepted the scheme their . representatives were to meet ' the Shipowners representatives about the middle of January to ! prepare for putting the scheme into operation. It has never been do ; nied that the draft published by us ; was a correct version. Tt could be ac - cepted with full reliance . | Our Mahatma has furnished us with another chapter of the Scheme story, 1 which the public are entitled to know, and we will be interested to learn if the secret joint Conference of Shipowners and Waterside Federation delegates (">ll question its general correctness. Fit is ! story throws a flood of light on win' is planned and aimed in connection with 1 this so-called “Co-operative scheme” |and how much the public is in it. i THE STORY OF A SCHEME. : Presenting the matter quite seriously 'we learn that the Waterside Workers 1 Federation in Conference at Dunedin in j 1917 went exhaustively into the matter; again at Lyttelton in 1918, the ! Executive was instructed to draw up a scheme. This was finally agreed to I at a Conference at Napier in 1919 and j was handed to the Employers in March | 1920. Of this scheme, which has never been made public ns far as we know. | one of the Waterside delegates said: | “The employers bad so altered Hie proI position as to be unrecognisable, so tli it j the altered proposed scheme would hay’ to lie submitted to the Federation.” It would lie interesting to know what, >rj iginal proposition was and why it could not be brought into the light of day. W T e are told that meetings were held on the 17th., 18th., 20th., and 21st. December 1920 to discuss “wages” and “tlie scheme.” One of the Waterside delegates objected to the pillage clause, j but the employers could “not agree to 1 delete the pillage clause.’’ The FedeI ration delegates agreed to lay the 1 scheme as amended before their Conference at Tiniaru. Two of 'he Employers, we learn, did not view the sehofUie favourably and wished their votes recorded against agreeing to >t FINAL RALLY AND SOME LANGUAGE.

On Dee. 21st., 1920 in the Farmers Institute Buildings, Wellington, we are informed that a joint m-eting of 13 shipowners and 24 wntersiders discussed the ‘•scheme,” The chief waterside delegate urged that: ‘‘Directors represent each side be of equal number.” Considered a Chairman unnecessary and instanced the Disputes Committee (which has no Chairman). Asked that watersiders be paid for statutory holidays as this would be in the interest of efficiency Agrc dto all other clauses except the last clause on profits. He said ‘‘they did not want the small boats in the scheme; they would he a nuisance.” Another delegate suggested four Directors from each side, and let them

elect an independent Chairman. Employers spokesman said: ‘‘They must ! stand by the proposal for four employI ers and thr.e watersiders as Directors; they must retain control of the industry.” A leading waterside delegate said ; “the employers must not get control of i the industry at present— the Unions had 1 control. They had th knowledge to do the work and could handle the scheme getter than the employers. If we cannot .put this scheme into operation, 1 am going to help put the contractors off tlie waterfront. W ■ are looking forward to managing all industries. We •have the brains to make the scheme go. You are trying to transfer the business to us because you have failed to carry it out successfully.” Another delegate for the watersiders said: “We are going to bring scientific methods to work, and we can run the work better than yon.” The employers reported on ■ resumption “that they could not agree to alter the Directors clause; there was no objection to a quarterly balance, but they could not agree to pay for statutory holidays. The employers suggested that the scheme he tried at Wellington, Bluff, Timaru and the Watersiders Wellington, Timaru, Napier. At one' meeting of fhe employers, we ar.' informed, qne of the shipowners objected to the scheme on the ground that this Company was working on the lines of increasing a permanent staff they had now working. Another point ed out that, whilst the, scheme was being tried, thv present contractor organisation would bo destroyed. Note.—lf only half this story were true, and we arc confident that it is nil true as we have names, dates and details which it is unnecessary to givv—surely it is time that the general public and the Government of this Dominion took a hand in this scheme. After all it concerns not only the big Shipping Companies and the Waterside Workers Federation. It concerns us all and that is our justification for telling this story.