THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12971, 26 November 1907, Page 8

THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

BEFORE THE CONCILIATION* BOARD. THE CASE FORJTHE EMPLOYERS. The hearing of the Farm Labourers' disputo was utmmed yesterday at the Provincial Chambers by tho Conciliation Board. Messrs J. D. Hall, Jones, Acland, nnd Evans appeared for the farmere, and Messrs Thorn, Kennedy, and Smith for the Union. In opening the ease for tho farmere Mr Jones stated that no case had ever come before the Courts of New Zealand where so much was involved. The Board was dealing with the interests of 16,000 workers in Canterbury, and, perhaps, as many employers with their families. Bound up with tho interests of the.*© parties were tho interests of the whole community. The- farmers were not coming to tho Board cringing for cheap labour—they did not not wa.nt it. There were a pood many men connected with the farming industry who received small pay, "but it would be proved that even if an award were made these men would have to come in under a permit system, and would be uo better off. The bad man and tho bad master were bound to get together. He pointed out that farming was not one industry, but comprised several. From that point of view it seemed to him impossible to make an award that would act with justice to both the farmer and his employee. Tho evidence to be loci would prove that an award was unnecessary, and that, even if it was necessary, it would bo impracticable to work fiums under set conditions. He proposed to call not only farmers but farm labourers, who had been pressing to bo allowed to give evidence. It would be impossible for him to call anything like a proportion of the labourers who desired to state that they preferred to work under tho present system. The evidence of experts would also be given so that the difficulties of farming would be placed before the Court, especially in dealing with weather conditions and other disadvantages under which they laboured. Tho farm labourers, contrary to the assertion made that they were drudges. found timo without difficulty to enjoy literature, and make themselves conversant with topics of general interest. Many of their witnesses were farmers, who had been farm labourers, and had raised themselves by their own industry. EVIDENCE OF DIRKCTOR OF LINCOLN COLLEGE. William Lowrio, Director of the Lincoln Agricultural College, was the first witness called. He stated that in. regard to tho farming industry, he had lied exporionco of work in different countries—Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand. As far as he ooulld judge the position of farm labourers which obtained in New Zealand was very much better than anywhere else. Ho was astounded to see that there was dissatisfaction prevailing, end he was inclined to the opinion that the men diid not know that they were really well off. This might have resulted in creatine dissatisfaction among thorn. Looking on the whole economic problem, he did not think that the matter which would affect tho fanner most was that of wages. It Avas tho other limitations which wore proposed. Tho position of the farmer wee not understood by many of those who were engagod in other industries. Many people hopelessly over-estimated the results which a farmer got from his property. Hβ doubted very much whether Hie average farmer in Canterbury, working on dear land, taking tho value of land at its present selling value, had en income of 6 por cent. oh the capittl ralne, alter hie own labour had been given in free. On coming to New Zealand, cix years ago, he had expeoted to find more profitable conditions, especially when the yields of the farms were stated at about 90 bushels of oats to the acre, and 60 bushels of wheat. But the conditions under which these results were obtained, the high, price of land, the cost of labour, end the amount of labour required, made the etory read considerably different. Working £6000 worth of land in Auetrailia., his total salt* were greater than wihen he worked £27,000 worth of land in. New Zealand. Referring to the wages proposals which were before the Board ho said that a good man differed so much from an inferior man that there was no possibility of placing them on.tho same basis. Conditions on a farm wero absolutely different to those of a factory. One man driving a binder might run for a season without repairs to the machine, and another might in the same timo damage a machine 'beyond repair. Then in stacking one man would stack the grain soundly, and another, an indifferent man, would stack badly, and , the stack would be soaked through. . A bad driller might Jiave his coulter running dry acre after acre, or a man might let his team run away and smash up £60 or £70 worth of machinery. As to shepherding, if a good' man was tied up to fixed hours, he would want to leave the place. A good farm hand was of the place, and a bad hand" was eternally wanting to see the boss got at. This latter class was found more frequently in the colonies than at Home, where the farm hand took a very deep personal interest in the management and working of tho farm. Things would be well left as they were, and it would work out very badly for the colony if farmers were obliged to work their hands under set rules. The effect would be that the farmers would ceaso to grow the crops which required the employment of most labour. They were doing it now, the inducements being tho high prico of sheep and tho difficulty of getting satisfactory labour. One condition in the colony was that owing to the subdivision of land in recent years the best farm hands had taken up land on their own acount, with the result that farmers had to be satisfied to a largo extent with second-class labour. Another factor was that farmers wero competing in the open markets of the world, and in that respect farming was different from tho tariffprotected industries. Fanners could not alter the world's price of wheat. After local consumption had been satisfied, tho price was made for them. The price of land had nothing to do with the price of wheat. In Scotland farm labourers were paid from £10 to £15 and found per half-year, fend in the l>est_ counties men. finding for themselves, were paid 18s per week, tho highest paid receiving 21s. A large amount of the work done in the colonies by men was done at Home by women—milkinjr. for instance, and work apart from horse teame. In Scotland shepherds were paid nearly double the wages of a ploughman, receiving up to £70 or £80 per annum: the ploughman was paid from £37 to £40 or £-50. The lowest wages were paid in Dorset, where men were paid from 12s 6d to 14s per week. In France, the largest-growing wheat country in Europe, the wages were from £21 to £32, and in Italy half the produco went to the landlord. Labour rates in India and Argentine (both competitors with Sew Zealand) were lower than New Zealand, and even in Australia the rates were fully '20 T)cr cent, lower than in New Zea-l.-mil. and the men worked longer bm r-,. The highest wages, 7s per day. v.-t-p , ji;iid by 'Uh* Government: this was c<>ii-i<k'r;H)ly over the average. One very serious matter was that, owing to th<> high price of labour, farmers were growing crops which were not so valuable as crops which might be produced. For instance, any farmer knew that mangolds were worth from £12

to £13 per acre, and turnips worth only from £2 to £3 per acre. It need scarcely be pointed out how much more valuable an aero of mangolds, which might require from £2 10s to £5 per acre in labour, would be than an acre of turnips costing £1 in labour. He desired to strongly impress on the Board that the producing wealth of the land was limited, because the farmers would not face the position through the difficulty in getting satisfactory labour. They might go into the market and not be able to get labour—ho had had that experience himself. He opposed the proposal to pax .overtime, as the men could be induced to waste tho time of their employers when they were not under actual supervision. To Mr Acland: He would not like to run his college dairy on a ninehours' day. To Mr Hall: A small dairy farmer would have to employ labour to milk to the greatest profit, but he would be much worse off under tho proposed •award. To Mr Thorn: If employees were in places where the conditions did not suit them they could leave. In reply u> 31 r Kennedy, tho witness stated that ho considered £3 per week iin excessivo minimum wage for a shepherd or farm hand. He was not prepared to say what would be a fair minimum; that should be fixed by the value of tho employee to his employer. It would be a very serious thing for farmers if they wero dictated to as to how they should manage their farms. In his opinion it would prevent possible farmers taking up land. The artificial and arbitrary restrictions such as thoso proposed would tend to cripplo the, farming community. This would work to tho disadvantage of the community, as tho total product would be affected both in quality and quantity. He considered the demands wero unnecessary, ns the farm labourers were in a position in New Zealand which was unequalled anywhere else in the world. As to the accommodation provided for farm hands, ho had seen a good deal of it, and had no particular fault to find. If fanners put lonic pillar* in. the rooms, some of tho labourers would carve their names on them. A FARM LABOURER'S EVIDENCE. Frederick Ellmere, farm labourer, Woodend, stated that in his opinion it was impracticable to carry on farm work successfully under tho demands yf the Union, la tho winter he got 6s per day, which was tho ruling rato vi his district. He averaged five daj's a week. He eupported threshing by the thousand, natner then by hour work. Under tho former system the men worked hotter and made, more. - When working by the hour, the men. loafed on the stack. On an average he would thresh 5000 bushels per week during the season. The present system of getting •'tucker" —the men finding themselves —was satisfactory, and preferable to any other system. He paid 5s a week rent. His employer allowed him to take firewood out of the fences, and to use, free of charge., a horse and cart to onrt it. He was also permitted to put potatoes in a paddock for himself. He did not think that the men were badly treated in Canterbury as a general rule. Witness believed in contracting in everything, as he could malte more at that than at day work. He had made £23 in one month a-t gorse grubbing; tho work could have been done cheaper by day labour. He had not found anything to complain about in regard ito food and accommodation at the farms. To Mr Kennedy: He did not know one man in his district who worked for 4s per day. The Board then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.