PRODUCER TO CONSUMER.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 112, 17 June 1914, Page 3

PRODUCER TO CONSUMER.

yo REDUCE THE COST OF LIVING

FARMERS' UNION AND TRADES

HALL

A more or less informal conference ■between representatives of the Canter■bury branch of the Farmers'-Union and . prominent leaders of trades unionism was held in -the Trades Hall last night, •the subject discussed being the. possibility of reducing the cost of living by elimiuating the middleman. Those present representing the Farmers' ,Union were Messrs Ensor, H. Livingstone, A. Bell, F. G. Horrell, and R. H. Orbell, and the representatives of ' the 1 unions were Messrs F. Ellis, M. W. Williams, E. Kennedy, and E. J. Howard. , conference had been called together at the request of members of the Farmers' Union, and Mr Ensor, in ex: plaiuiug the object, said the Farmers' TCnion had considered that it would be ] advisable to hold a discussion, as it was . thought that the cost of living could be " considerably reduced by a system of cooperation between the farmers and the ; meriibers of the trades unions. He mentioned the system of co-operation as applied to farmers' association, and said ' that when the Farmers' Co-operative Association was founded thirty years ago it was based ou a principle de- • signed to reduce the cost of all articles without 'forming a combine. The association had outgrown that object, but. it was desirable that a system of distribution between consumer and producer should be established that would make it impossible for a ring to be formed. The present system was keep-' ing lip the cost of living through thriftlessness and wastefulness, there were managers, floor foremen, bookkeepers, storemen, and others,'whose wages had to be paid, the cost of buildings and expensive sites, and other costly things, which all. went to increase the cost , to the con sum er. The speaker said that at • the last meeting of the Farmers •* Union he had. been accused of mentioning the * middleman as parasites in the com- • munity, aud said he would now take the . opportunity of repeating the statement. • • It was the system of distribution, he continued, that the delegation desired to call attention to. Taking bread as a« instance, Mr Ensor said that bread j could, between grower and miller, be produced at 3d per loaf, but at present the cost was 6d per loaf, and the same could be said of milk, butter, fish, and several other commodities. As a special instance, he jjointed out' that millc was sold in one street by several different carts each morning, thus wasting a great deal of money in urineces- : sary cost of distribution. Each time an :•/.v ayticle was handled a little more was folded to its eopt to the consumer. He »' suggested that distributing bur onus be instituted by the trades Unions, and that by this method and cash transactions the cost to the consume v would be greatly lessened and " the producers' profit made more certain and, consequently, he would be able to [charge less for his direct .supplies. ' • Mr Ensor went on to say that the delegates, as representing tiie primary . producers, desired to meet the direct consumers, but did not expect to make any more by such direct trading, for the reason that, the price of products • was regulated by the markets of the • vrorld. Yet it was possible bv eliminating unnecessary people to greatly re- : jcluce the cost. . At this point Mr Howard suggested jfchafc it would be advisable to elect a chairman, and proposed that Mr Ellis be appointed. This liaviug been done, ■ Mr Howard went, on to say that the ' Trades Hall members were handicapped ; by the fact that they represented no one, and while they had their individual opinions, they could not speak on behalf of any union. He himself might qpeak as a revolutionary Socialist, but would not be speaking for his union in doing so, since revolutionary Socialism ■was in advance of trades unionism. It [Would be necessary to call a meeting of the unions before anything definite 'could be accomplished. Mr Livingstoue said it was understood that the Farmers' Union members did not come representing any body either, but it was hoped- to put forward proposals for reducing the cost of living which the Trades Hall members could put before their unions, and a more formal meeting with the farmers £ould be held Jater. Mr Ellis said he thought the farmers , were to come along with a resolution at the last meeting of the Farmers' Union. The only thing that could Jto done was for the farming interest

to state its views. The Trades Hall members represented only themselves and anything that # was done could be only of an informal nature. Mr Williams agreed, and in referring to remarks made previously concerning the Farmers' Co-operative Association said that though it was a co-operative association its prices were the same as any retail business. Mr Ensor said that the deputation of farmers {lid not support the Farmers' Co-operative Association, since it was though' that its cost of distribution' was too high, i Thirty years ago, when it was founded, it served its purpose in reducing the cost to the farmer, but it had now outgrown that purpose.

Mr Horrell said he was afraid the farmers' delegation had taken two steps instead of one. He had proposed that the Commercial Committee of the Far: mers? Union should consider whether it was possible to bring the producer and the consumer together, but the Commercial Committee had never met, and was now out of existence. If it was possible to bring the unions with their large memberships into a compact with the farmers it. would be possible to Supply them with large quantities of produce at a reduced; cost through saving in handling and. middlemen's profits. The consumers would have to give a guarantee of the amount required. He was. against an export duty on butter, but he was not against what he considered an equally sensible proposition, which was that the direct consumers should give t"lie butter factories an idea of the amount required by them, and that could be set aside without being affected by market prices. . He considered a municipal milk distribution was an excellent idea/ but the supply and distribution of milk was a big problem; still they should try to solve it. With regard to meat, lie believed it possible for the people to get the best meat at a less price than now paid for it. Towards spring there was always a rise in the price of sheep, but if an order for a certain number of carcases could be given by . the combined consumers the meat could be stored in the freezer. He thought it absolutely essential to prevent " undesirable persons' ' going round and buying up all the butter for the purpose of holding it for a profit, but if that could be done why could not the unions combine to buy it cheaply? It would even be possible to do the same with eggs—for cooking purposes, anyway. Mr Ellis said that it was impossible now for the worker to buy eggs in the spring owing to the high prices charged, and he believed that a circle was being formed which' would result in even higher prices next year.

Mr Horrell said he would like to see co-operation confined as closely as possible to tlie farmers' products. Mr Ellis said that in past' summers butier could be bought for .1/- per lb, but last summer the price was 1/2 per lb. His . idea was, as Mr Elisor had said, that the cost of distribution was too high and the system wasteful. The people would have ta. run the co-opera-tive principle themselves. Mr Elisor: "That is my very point—establish markets."

Mr Ellis: "Then why not extend the principle and deal in everything?"

Mr Horrell said he did not consider high prices did any harm, since if the farmer got more for his goods then the workers had reason "for asking for higher wages.

One of the members asked what would happen if milk depots were established aud fewer carts and fewer men were required to do the work. What about the men thrown out of work?

Mr Ellis replied that he saw no difficulty, since there would then be more men to work the farms, and the Government would not have to import farm labourers.

Mi* Livingstone said that in dealing with the milk supply they were up against a very difficult problem. There was a lot extra put on the cost through dealing in credit and acquiring bad debts. The people who paid had to make up for those who didn't pay. Mr Ellis asked why, if the post office could distribute the country Is letters, a municipality should not be able to distribute milk. Mr Ensor said that whatever was done could not affect the farmer's prices, since he could always turn his milk into butter or cheese. The workers would be doing a good thing for themselves in combining to-get direct supplies. Mr Ellis thought- the distribution should be conducted by the municipality —otherwise the history of the Leeds Co-operative Society would be repeated. This co-operation started with a few workers buying their , own grain and milling it for themselves, and ended by becoming a big monopoly. Mr Bell: "The ,best thing, now-is for the Labour people to .consider the matter and report to their unions,, and the farming representatives to report to the

Farmers' Union. This meeting shows at least that our union is somewhat sincere." He went on to say that there was an idea abroad that the farmers were antagonistic to Labour unions, but this was not true. He moved the adjournment of the meeting. v Mr Kennedy, in seconding the motion, thought that the retaining of produce in the country would soon have to be considered in more countries than New Zealand only. The only party to carry out such a co-operative system as that proposed would be either the municipality or the Government. Mr Williams said a great many meetings would have to be held before anything could be done to solve the problem, .and the solution was one in which great minds all oyer the world could not agree. Mr,Elisor: "There are many things we can't do, and there are a great-*n«my things we can do —the cost of can be reduced.

Mr Ellis said the Labour representatiA'es were glad to meet anyone who could contribute anything towards the solution of the problem, and said the trouble was that the city worker couldn't meet the farmer often enough. Mr Livingstone: "Perhaps you'd like him. better if'you did."

Mr Wilis: " Yes, aud if you met the city worker more [often perhaps you'd like him better." Mr Ellis said further that the Trades Hall members always be glad of such meetings, and if nothing came out of the present discussion at least no harm could be done. Mr Howard said one member had referred to an antipathy between the workers and the fawners, but he did not think that was so on the part of- the workers, since the only classes they recognised were workers and parasites, and the farmers were classed with the workers. The cost of living was a very vital question, and by meeting as. they had done, on a common basis with a common ' understanding, some good would be done. If a bigger and more representative meeting could be brought about he was sure. the farmers' would enjoy themselves and understand the city worker better. .

The meeting concluded with votes "of thanks to the farming, representatives and the chairman.