|
WAR ON THE WATERFRONT:
GET THE FACTS!!!
By now, most of us will be aware of the
dispute on Australian wharves. This flyer has been prepared by a small number of
Australians alarmed at the misinformation being peddled by some of the players in the
debate.
Mr Reith and the business owners have concentrated their attacks on a couple of main
issues. These issues are dealt with below, including the sources that we got the figures
from. Mr Reith and Mr Howard make consistent comparisons between Australian ports and
those overseas. What needs to be born in mind is that these comparisons are not comparing
apples with apples. Here's why:
- Australian ship turnaround rates are not comparable with the busiest ports (Rotterdam,
Singapore) simply because we don't have as many cranes. Singapore allocates 5 cranes to
each ship. Most Australian ports do not even have 5 cranes (Port of Singapore Authority)
- Taking a container off one ship and placing it on straight onto another in one movement
(called transshipment) counts as two container movements. This doesn't happen often in
Australia because our ports are not big enough, nor do they have the right equipment.
Therefore, comparing figures between ports with different equipment is grossly misleading.
About 10% of container movement in Australia has capacity for trans-shipment; the ports
Reith compares us to have up to 90%.(Tim Blood, P&O Containers Business Manager)
- You will often hear talk about container rates per hour. Containers come in two sizes,
20 foot and 40 foot. So, the number of conatiners moved per hour is not, in itself, a
useful bit of information. What is more useful is knowing the total amount of volume that
is moved. This figure is expressed as TEU, or Twenty foot Equivalent Units. When this unit
is used as a measure, Ausralian ports are vastly better than what Reith and co claim; up
to 22 TEU per crane per hour in some ports. This compares favourably with Singapore (the
world's best port) at 24. Comparing TEU with containers per hour is like comparing inches
with centimetres.
- And what about the so-called wharfie reports ? The average number of hours worked by
Austrlain wharfies is 55hrs per week. The wharves workforce has been reduced by 57% since
1989. Coupled with this, there has been very little investment in any new equipment that
would allow productivity to rise. These factors combined mean that substantial overtime
must be worked. This is why their salaries are inflated. The base salary of an MUA member
is $35,000. But guess what? The non-union workers now employed by Patrick are on contracts
worth $46,000 a year!
- The effect on Australia ? Contrary to media reports, the costs incurred on the wharves
are not crippling the country. In one study prepared by the Office for Marine Safety and
Port Strategy, it was found that stevedoring (wharve) charges for a container shipped from
LA to Sydney were only 3% of the total cost of transport !!! Clearly, the wharfies are not
holding the country to ransom. Wharfies, like any of us, are entitled to fight to protect
their jobs. As to the oft mentioned monopoly on labour supply, this is nothing new.
Professional groups such as doctors and lawyers have been doing something similar for
centuries.
- What can you do ? In short, try to bring some balance to the debate. Tell your friends
the real story, write letters, call talkback. The dispute engineered by Reith is about
crushing a group of Australians who are organised, committed and principled. They are
simply trying to avoid unemployment. Don't be misled.
Back
to wharfie page
Home
|