Table Of Content64 A 2063
TS10U1B7G4S3tt3i9n5gen iG |
T
64 A 2063
5023]
WERTHEIM PUBLICATIONS IN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
Established in 1923 by the family of the late Jacob Wertheim “for the
support of original research in the field of industrial cooperation . . .”
Seymour Harris Derek C. Bok
E. R. Livernash John T. Dunlop,
George S. Homans Chairman
Hiring of Dock Workers
AND EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
IN THE PORTS OF NEW YORK, LIVERPOOL,
LONDON, ROTTERDAM, AND MARSEILLES
VERNON H.JENSEN
New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations
Cornell University
Harvard University Press
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
1964
© 1964 sy THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
To Esther
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DISTRIBUTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, LONDON
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 64—19587
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NIEDERSACHS.
STAATS- U, UNIV. -
BIBLIOTHE K
GOTTINGEN
Foreword
This volume makes a distinctive contribution to the international com-
parison of industrial relations systems. While recent years have seen a
very considerable number of studies of industrial relations in a particular
country, there have been few, if any, outside of the specialized reports of
industry committees of the ILO, which treat the same industry in a number
of different countries. International comparisons within a single industry
have the great merit of highlighting those features of industrial relations that
are common,and perhapscan be attributed to similar technology and market
environmentsand those features which aredistinctive to a particular country,
and perhaps can beattributed to specialized national conditions. This method
constitutes a powerfultool, and it is surprising that so few studies have used
this approach. It is hoped that the present study will stimulate others in such
industries as railroads, shipping, steel, textiles, and the like, which offer fruit-
ful opportunities for research.
Professor Jensen here reports on his first-hand investigation of long-
shoring in the ports of New York, London, Liverpool, Rotterdam, and
Marseilles. He brings to this study many years of research and association
with labor, management, and governmentin this industry in the port of
New York. The center of attention is a comparison of the arrangements to
regulate and control hiring. In an industry in which the loading and unload-
ing of particular ships is universally of limited duration, uncertain in time,
and performed with varying degreesof specialization, the procedures and the
rules determining the allocation of men to work are decisive to management
and to workers andtheir representatives. These arrangements and rules have
been repeatedly at the heart of longshoring labor disputes in this country
and abroad.
This volume appears at a propitious time. We have had serious work
stoppages in longshoring on the East and Gulf Coasts of the United States
in recent years. Importantissues relating to crew size, manning, technologi-
cal change, and hiring arrangements remain in controversy. It is particularly
useful at this time to scholars and observers alike, as well as to policymakers
—————————
FOREWORD
viii
|| iodpnfiircesutcnoutirmloeyen,itolrtlmahuanemsnrifanecgaroteauebmnsletenrtithfesers,opimranonoctdnehedeguosrcveaoesumrnenwtmhr1eyinndctuohsartghrpeayon.vrcetWihietinoslfaetanocotitrnhbseetevriei,tenuwttiuhotsenhesedcoaeermxleppsaeesrrweaihlteedinrovcemee, Contents
andthe successes and difficulties in other ports may be suggestive to questions
under reviewin this country.
Joun T. Duntop.
Introduction
1. Hiring Practices in the Five Ports 1
Part I— The Port of New York
2. Early Hiring Practices 21
3. The New York State Crime Commission 30
4. The Bi-State Compact and the Waterfront Commission 54
5. Employment Experience and the Seniority System 86
Part II — The Ports of Liverpool and London
6. The Dock Labor Scheme in Great Britain 121
7. The National Dock Labor Board 143
8. Liverpool 156
9. London 184
Part II] — The Port of Rotterdam
10. Early Conditions and the Haven Arbeiders Reserve 217
11. The Centrale voor Arbeidsvoorziening 232
Part IV— The Port of Marseilles
12. Hiring and Employment of Dock Workers 253
Part V — The Ports in Perspective
13. Summary and Conclusions 279
Notes 301
Index nt 313
Author’s Preface
Tables
. Hours worked by longshoremenin the Port of New York by vari- 90 majeTshteirceshhiapssaaillwianygsinbteoenharrboormianscea tihnritlhleingcosimgihnt.gFaornadllgooifngthiosf, tshhiepss.hipA-
ous hours groups for 1953 and 1961 ping business has always been rough and tough, highly competitive, and
_ Distribution of number of men employed per day, January 1, 1962 vulnerable to many uncertainties whether economic or of “wind and wave.”
. 91
to December 31, 1962 So accepted have the uncertainties of shipping been that in the pastits
. Distribution of gangs in the Port of New York according to their rigorous and degrading conditions of employment were often considered
total assignments from October 1, 1957 to September30, 1958 largely unavoidable. An unreliable business, it made employment insecure
_ Distribution of gangs in the various centers in the Port of New and casual, and it generally attracted a fringe of the least stable workers. If
York according to their total assignments from October 1, 1957 to the fringe was undulylarge, and it usually was, it seemed to breed prolifi-
94 cally on itself, undermining the sturdier men—a sort of “Gresham’s Law”
September 30, 1958
of labor, in which inferior men drove out the better men, or all men gravi-
_ The labor and managementstructure in the Port of London 192 tated in quality to that of the worst of the crowd. Dockland has often been
a brutalizing labor market; unless a man could stand solidly with his fellows
for the maintenance of commonrules, a prospect easier to visualize than to
realize, he had to prowl and fight for employment, using the sametactics
as the meanestof hisrivals.
The typical waterfront labor market of the past, under the pervasive in-
fluence of a surplus labor supply (which seemed always to prevail), was
beset by conditions of employment which, by anybody’s standards, were bad.
A disorganized labor market has been the rule, and conditions on the water-
front have been notoriousin all countries.
If the plight of the dock workers was not brought forward by the con-
science of humanitarians, it was sometimes made obvious by the revolts of
the men themselves whostruck outin desperation, sometimesblindly, when
forced to the limits of even their endurance. The nature of their work and
the uncertainty of their lives produced a common psychology of group loy-
alty which, though it created greatsolidarity, resulted in men’s almost un-
questioning support of any attack, real or imagined. The common adage
“oneout, all out” was no ideological invention; it was a product of necessity
if the men were to hold any standards or preserve even the meagerest con-
ditions of work. That they seized and exploited opportunities whenever
they arose, or forced a hard bargain whenever they found a vulnerable em-
ployer, is understandable.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
xil thoughamuch remains to be accomplished, sub- AUTHOR’S PREFACE xiii
scwthhaaanMnttoigraemleseriaecmcnopesmrn?eotvlAayerb,meoeuhnttoth?weehvWafehosrra,cbteesefnaotrmcweaosdreokr1ingnrmovouasprstioubmsroodpueogrrhtnts pteoshrsetesnm.tiaaHlblooyuwtthdaeindsdatmbhyee ipanrrorchAaeinsrgspieernsmgieminaantnrsdypoworehbtmjapeticlntogdiryuvsometuerhpnyastsloaabrbenoaedrgneinmtncaoirtedkhseeesthcsfar?ovirebmeIufnpulrnatecthvtieaioiondlneieovndfge,lrpaournplademcsteiwncghteoysvo?eafrnnpdiranpcgrtoitccheee-s
or dTihfeferdeenatr?th of information in the face of bitter charges and counter NduerewsYionrhkirainndig ndoctkhelsaebofrouarnfdortehiegnstprourcttsu;rethoafteism,ptlhoeymmeecnhtaniinctsheofPohrirtinogf
charges in 1k955anadbotuhte trhoelefoafctsthoefWtahteerwfartoenrtfrConotmmliasbsoiroin, wnhich:ohacn’ a© athnedrtohbejeicntciivdeenhcaesabnedenregtuolasrtiutdyyoftheempexltoeynmtentotwbhyicclhassthoef wsourpkpelrys.ofAdfoucrk-
5eCsotmaambilSissshieeodeni,nl1e9d53toasaasrteusduyltofotfhtihsie fpoirntd.iinDgsuroii£ngntghethNeeawutYuomrnkaoSftat1e95C5riaimnfed ewxotreknetrstoiwshkiecpht,doorckfawilosrktohbaes bkeepetn,diencabsauallainzceed.wiHtehncteh,eIdheamvaende,ndaeanvdortehde
throughout 1956 1 made an investigation ofthe ee ee. ? to discover whether employment for the individual worker is stable or un-
concentrating on hiring and employmentpractices. With this as ackground, stable, adequate or inadequate.I havetried to describe and analyzetheroles
I continued during 1957 and 1958 to study the labor relations of the port. of labor unions, employer groups, and the governments, including therela-
Both phases of the study have produced results* and promise more for tive effect of traditional or customary practices, collective bargaining rules
the future. It was obvious, however, that the study of the Port of New York and requirements, and government programs.
would begreatly enriched by a comparison with hiring practices and policies The author cannot make specific acknowledgments to all who have as-
in other places. Because much of the research in the field of labor relations
sisted him. Nevertheless, he is indeed grateful to everyone who supplied
has been mainly concerned with single situations or single industries in one
information and gave time to explain and discuss the complexities of the
geographical area, there has been an increasing recognition in recent years
problem he studied. The New York State School of Industrial and Labor
of a need for more comparative studies. Without them the value of gen-
Relations at Cornell University allowed time for research and a sabbatical
eralization is necessarily limited.
year. The John Senior Guggenheim Foundation and the Wertheim Foun-
In 1959 and 1960 I had the opportunity, through a sabbatical year at
dation awarded grants. A long list of persons who wereparticularly helpful
Leeds, to investigate the hiring and employmentpractices in four European
could be named in the New York Shipping Association, the International
ports: Liverpool, London, Rotterdam, and Marseilles. Liverpool and London
Longshoremen’s Association, and the Waterfront Commission in New York
were obvious choices—two great ports near my base of operations. The
City; in the National Council of Port Employers, the Port Employers of
port of Rotterdam (about which I had some advance information on hiring
practices) and the port of Marseilles were selected because of their impor- London andaffiliated bodies, the Dock Workers Section of the Transport
tance as continental ports—one for the north of Europe, the other for the and General Workers Union, the National Association of Stevedores and
south. Another reason for Rotterdam was also its preeminence in recent Dock Workers, the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen’s
years over other continental ports; Marseilles, because of its importance in Union, the National Dock Labour Board, and the Ministry of Labour in
the Mediterranean. London; in the Employers’ Association of the Port of Liverpool, the Dock
Thepurpose ofthis study has been to show the extent to which the long- Workers Section of the Transport and General Workers Union, and the
shore, or dock,labor marketin five ports has been made more orderly; that National Dock Labour Board in Liverpool; in the Sheepsvaart Vereeniging
is, made subject to procedures and rules designed to decasualize employment Zuid, in the Central voor Arbeidsvoorzeining, the Nederlandse Bond van
and to eliminate someof its harsher aspects. How have the changes been Vervoerspersoneel, and the Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Volksgerzond-
made? Whathave beentheloci of responsibility and decision-making? The heid in Rotterdam; the Union Nationale des Industries de la Manutention
work place is governed by rules. What are the rules and the rule-making dans les Ports Francaise in Paris; and the Chamber of Commerce Conces-
sion, and the Bureau Central de la Main d’Oeuvre in Marseilles. The author
anveeeeand Employment Experience of Longshoremen in the
ptreiaal»anPdp.eLab5o3r4-5Ro5en0lE;attiahoenndsNReeDwviiseYpwuo,trekJuSlWeyattot1eul9rre5fm7reR,onentvptpi,.ie”nw5,I8tn8hAd-epu6sr0tNir8lei.aw1l95aY8no,drkpLp.aLbo3on4rg2s-hR3eo6lra9et;iIonn“dsDuescRtaersvyui,ae”lwi,zIantdJiuuosln-y iECshvaegrrllayotntentfeulRiGfcoohlradr,sdtsya.linsdticfosruggtehsetitoynpsinmgadoef Mbrys.MisMsarFirlaynnceHsicEkaogcakn aanndd MMirsss.
Introduction
CHAPTER I
Hiring Practices in the Five Ports
Each of the five ports of New York, Liverpool, London, Rotterdam, and
Marseilles is important in its own right. Four of them are the largest in
their respective countries, and Liverpool is second largest. They vary in
size, each with its own uniquelayout and configuration of piers and wharves,
but to a large extent they are general cargo ports, some running more heay-
ily to special cargoes than others. The size of a port is largely a result of its
location and facilities and its relationship to industrial hinterlands, or to its
position as a commercial entrepot. Obviously, the size of ports and the nature
of their operations affect the number and classes of workers who find em-
ployment. It was not feasible to make a formal study of the impact of these
differences upon hiring practices and employmentconditions at the particu-
lar ports, although some of these forces will be noted from timeto time. In
the main, in this study each portis taken asit is. No description of the ports
is therefore given at the outset except to indicate their relative sizes by the
number of men employed. Even these figures are useful only for the most
general comparison, because the classes of men included in the respective
registers are not strictly comparable.
The ports of New York and London appear to be about equal in the
numbersof registered men. In 1959 London had an average workers’ register
(the total of all workers, absent ones included) of 28,779 and an average live
register of 26,319, the currently available men. Of this number, not more
than 20 per cent were permanent, or weekly, workers. The lightermen, who
work on the river, are included in the figures but have a separate employ-
ment status. The tally clerks are also included. But there are many men
working for the dock companies in other than dock employment who do
not come under registered employment. In June 1959 the Port of New York
had total register of 29,140. This included a few more than 4000 checkers
