BETTER CONDITIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10286, 22 May 1919, Page 6

BETTER CONDITIONS

LABOUR ON WATERFRONT

EMPLOYERS TO-FORMULATE

PROPOSALS

From what transpired at last night’s meeting of the Harbour Board, it ' would appear that an endeavour is to bo mado to adjust tho difficulties existing in connection with tho employment of labour on the waterfront. The .question, which has aroused a great amount of controversy at different times, was introduced by Mr R. A. Wright, M.P., who moved ns follows: tho 'Wellington Harbour Board invite a conftronce of employers of waterside labour in Wellington to meet at the earliest possible date in order to, consider the best method or improving, existing . conditions and ot formulating a scheme which will tend to tho greater permanency and cfliciency ot waterside labour, in the mutual interest alike of employees, employers, and the general public. Sir Wright said that the present position on the waterfront was most unsatisfactory; ‘ and this was dim to many causes. What was the remedy. At the present, time they_ saw men idle on the waterfront and this was one of the great causes of the industrial discontent. One of the greatest evils was tho waste time duo to insufficient available work. He knew it would cost a great deal of money to place the whole of the workers on a permanent basis, but the position had to be faced. With regard to the provision of workers’ homes, they should keep before the Government the proposal that power should he given harbour boards to carry out housing schemes. Another matter that might be considered was the employment of the workers in other capacities "bn the waterfront, during slack periods. The motion was seconded by Mr W, M. Welch. ■Mr McEwan thought that the employees should be invited to attend the conference, and ho moved to that effect. He remarked that they must have co-operation. The men were entitled to consideration. Mr J. G. Cobbe seconded the amendment. , , Mr C. E. Daniell also supported the amendnsent, saying that members knew tho temper of the men and could not ignore them. Mr Wright said he would not accept ■fie amendment at present. The view taken by Mr Chapman was that as the men were an essential part of the industry they should be included in tho proposed conference. Regarding the question of permanency he pointed out that.many of the men preferred casual labour, hilt they did want their fair share. _ Referring to a suggestion that the shipowners had persistently refused to meet the men, Captain C. McArthur said the statement was quite new to him. Personally he held the view that the men were entitled to be consulted in everything appertaining to their work. . , Mr C. M. Turret! concurred m the view expressed by- the previous speaker. He thought that it would be fnadn'k able to cbnsnlt the employees before tho employers had an opportunity of formulating proposals. Mr J*. G. Harkness (chairman) said that whatever was done in Wellington in tho way of improving the labour, problem would hare to bo a Dominion affair. It was their duty to formulate a scheme that would make for better efficiency on the wharf. He did not think it would be a proper thing to call in the men until proposals were agreed upon by the shipowners. Ultimately the co-operation of the men would be absolutely _ necessary. Without that co-operation nothing could be done.

Mr Mcßwan was requested to withdraw his amendment, hut this he declined to do. He said that if the men were overlooked tho whole thine would probably fizzle out as it had done before. Mr Cobbe contended that if the men were not invited to the conference suspicions would arise as to what was going on.

Here Mr "Welch stated he was under the impression that the men were to he included. He could not, therefore, second the motion.

Mr R. E. Sinclair thereupon seconded the ■ motion, which was carried.

Mr Wright took the opportunity to explain that there waJ no intention on his part to ignore the men.