|
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 wharfies page
|
