THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7349, 2 December 1907, Page 4

THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

BEFORE THE CONCILIATION BOARD.

EVIDENCE AT LEESTON.

The Conciliation Board heard further evidence in the farm labourers' dispute at Leeston on Friday. John Rennie, farmer, said that he had been farming in the district since 1864, and had experience of all kinds of farming and dairying work. He was quite satisfied that New Zealand could compete in wheat growing with Australia, but not with Canada. If an award were made employment would be given only to the best men; the other would have a difficulty in getting employment. Mr Thorn: The award would operate without serious inconvenience to farmers? —I think so. Of course, at present I employ the men who can be got handy. Continuing ,the witness stated that New Zealand was nine times as good for grazing as Australia. New Zealand wheat yield per acre was three times as great, but harvesting was easier in Australia. The weather in New Zealand was more to be depended on.

To Mr Kennedy: His employees worked the same hours as those the Union were asking for. They had nothing to complain of in regard to accommodation.

To Mr Jones: He paid about £450 per annum in wages, ■which worked out at"£B3 per annum per man. The weekly men got- £1 per week and a bonus of from £5 to £8. His comparison with Australia was a general one; he had not gone carefully into figures. He thought Mr Lowrie would be able to make a fair comparison. He estimated the. cost of producing wheat at 3s per bushel (Mr Jones said.that the average price of wheat for the last 15 years was 2s 8d per bushel, thus showing a loss of 4d per bushel on production). During harvest timo his men were paid £2 a week, and he considered this a . fair thing. A shilling an hour and found would also be fair. There was no necessity to regulate the hours of teamsters, as the farmer would not work his team more than eight hours. He did not charge his man anything for keeping a horse; it would not pay him to keep it for Is a week. Boys generally were, fairly well treated, though on dairy farms they had a pretty rough time. In his opinion the workers should have the option; of working by piece work or by the day.

Mr Thorn: Would you go out of the farming business if an award were made.giving higher wages?—lt would tend to put more land into grass, but I don't think it is going to wreck the country.

To Mr Broadhead: He preferred present conditions to those proposed by the Union, but he thought that the farmers would have to face the new position. To Mr Rusbridge: Many of the farmers in the district bought land cheaply, so the present high price of land did not affect them adversely. Owing to the improvements in machinery less labour was employed, and harvesting was done more cheaply. John Ober Huber, farm labourer, said that he received 6s a day. He paid Gs a week rent ,and supported his wife and five children. His wife also went out to work. From January Ist to November 25th his earnings were £86 17s lid.

To Mr- Kennedy: On a drainage contract he had made 4s a day, working in water, and buying his own gumboots. At potato-digging he had made 7s 6d per day on piece-work, digging in good crops. On poor crops his earnings were much reduced,

To Mr Evans: On a ten-ton crop he would dig a ton of potatoes a day. He did not know any man who could dig double that quantity. To Mr Jones: He had earned £9 17s 3d for three weeks' threshing. Making allowances for wind and rain, he would not put in on an average 60 hours a week at threshing. He averaged four days a week casual work. He did not know that other men were engaged two months ahead, and were working every day.

To Mr Thorn: The 60-hours did not include waiting time, when he was under an obligation to the "boss" to be about in case he was wanted.

Richard Rowe, general labourer, Southbridge, stated that he got 6s a day »and his dinner, and paid £17 rent per annum. He considered that the half-holiday would be workable, except during harvest time. He was not in favour of contract work, as it had a tendency to lower prices, and young lads were talked into taking contracts ati extremely low rates. It also kept boys at home who should be in permanent billets.

To Mr Jones: He thought that day work in shearing would be better than payment by the hundred. On team work there was no need to regulate hours between a good man and 'his "boss." He thought that boys should be paid 17s 6d a week, partly in order to safeguard the billets of married men. He believed in preference to unionists.

To Mr Thorn : If an employment book were kept at Leeston, the farmers would find hands more easily than they did at present.

William Lilley, Southbridge, ploughman, said that he was paid 22s 6d a week and found. He started with the horses at 6 a.m. and knocked oft ac 8 p.m. He considered that there was more responsibility and work in connection with a five-horse team than with a four-horse team.

This concluded the evidence for the Union,

Mr Jones, for the farmers, called John Smith, Killinchy, labourer, who said that he received 6s a day, and paid a rent of 6s per week. He had, from his employer, grazing for a cow, and firewood free. He was perfectly contented with his position. He started -work-on a farm at 7s, and at 17, when working horses, he was paid 10s per week. ' He found that he could live on his present wages, and save money. He had never heard of any dissatisfaction in the district. He would rather give and take with his employer than work under the proposed hard-and-fast rules. The Saturday half-holiday would be impracticable durirjg harvest, or where men were working with cows or teams. He preferred the contract system to day labour, as a contractor was his own "boss," and could work what hours he liked.

To Mr Thorn :He made.7s a day on contract work at gorse-cutting. He worked less than eight hours a day, and did not "kill himself." The privilege of grazing his cow on his employer's grass was worth more than 2s per week to him. He had the loan of a liorse and dray from his employer whenever he wanted it.

Mr Thorn said that the witness was getting equal to 7s 6d per day, if he put a monetary value on his privileges.

Witness, continuing, said that at 17 years he ploughed seven acres a day, as much as any man. He did not consider that he was entitled then to a man's wages, Us he was only a learner.

Mr Thorn : At seven acres a day you were a jolly good learner. (Laughter.)

To Mr Jones : In connection with all teams the good man was left to himself.

George Brown, Lakeside, ploughman and general farm hand, said that the good ploughman took a pride in his horses, and did not want interference. He did not think that a farm could be worked under seb conditions^ Witness was paid 21s per week, a harvest bonus, and the free keep of a horse (equal to 6s a week).. If the Union scale of wages was brought in, both men and horses %vould get the sack. In tovo years and a half 'he had saved over £100. He did not know any farm labourer who. wanted the Saturday half-holiday. He always took a holiday .when he wanted it, and it was never objected to. The men in his district wanted tilings to remain in their present position. The Board rose at 4 p.m. Mr Evans sfcaied that he had eighteen more farm labourers who desired to give evidence that they were perfectly satisfied with the present state of affairs, and fully two-thirds of the farmers present also wished to give evidence. The chairman said that the _ Board would arrange for another sitting in £eesion. Ifc could not be held until after the New Year.