Waterside Dispute 1951
Waterside Dispute 1951
Hayley Ross
13SA
1951 was post war and the country was booming economically, for this reason the cost of living was rising substantially. The federation of Labour took out a general wage order through the Arbitration Court and promised everyone in the unions covered by this court to a 15% pay rise. This was meant to include the watersiders, but the Waterfront Industry Commission was in control of the watersider’s wages, they broke this promise of a pay rise and said that the watersiders can live off over time and get paid for that. The watersiders were already working 15 hour days at a time so they refused to work overtime, for this they were locked out of the wharf and our ports around the country came to a stand-still. The watersider’s reaction to this was to try and change the policy of the lockout and get their 15% pay rise. The governments’ reaction to the ‘strike’ by watersiders was to call a State of Emergency and call in the current servicemen (navy, army) to work on the wharves so that New Zealand was still getting their essential supplies.
The perspective that is being dealt with in this situation as this is a political issue; this means that was relating to government policy making as distinguished from administration or law. This affects the issue because it was a government policy made by the Arbitration Court to give all unions protected by it a 15% pay rise so that they can live more comfortably within the rising cost of living, but the watersiders did not receive it because their industry commission were the ones who controlled their pay and whether they should get a pay rise or not. The political is perspective is correct because both sides of this fight were fuelled by political reasoning. The watersiders wanted the 15% pay rise that they were promised by the Arbitration Court, which the Waterfront Industry Commission were not giving them. The president of the National Watersiders Union Jock Barnes was the man who led
Hayley Ross
13SA
1951 was post war and the country was booming economically, for this reason the cost of living was rising substantially. The federation of Labour took out a general wage order through the Arbitration Court and promised everyone in the unions covered by this court to a 15% pay rise. This was meant to include the watersiders, but the Waterfront Industry Commission was in control of the watersider’s wages, they broke this promise of a pay rise and said that the watersiders can live off over time and get paid for that. The watersiders were already working 15 hour days at a time so they refused to work overtime, for this they were locked out of the wharf and our ports around the country came to a stand-still. The watersider’s reaction to this was to try and change the policy of the lockout and get their 15% pay rise. The governments’ reaction to the ‘strike’ by watersiders was to call a State of Emergency and call in the current servicemen (navy, army) to work on the wharves so that New Zealand was still getting their essential supplies.
The perspective that is being dealt with in this situation as this is a political issue; this means that was relating to government policy making as distinguished from administration or law. This affects the issue because it was a government policy made by the Arbitration Court to give all unions protected by it a 15% pay rise so that they can live more comfortably within the rising cost of living, but the watersiders did not receive it because their industry commission were the ones who controlled their pay and whether they should get a pay rise or not. The political is perspective is correct because both sides of this fight were fuelled by political reasoning. The watersiders wanted the 15% pay rise that they were promised by the Arbitration Court, which the Waterfront Industry Commission were not giving them. The president of the National Watersiders Union Jock Barnes was the man who led