THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12975, 30 November 1907, Page 6

THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

« BEFORE THE OO>'CILIATION BOARD. EVIDENCE AT LEBSTON. The Conciliation Board heard further evidence in the farm laßourere , dispute at Leeston yesterday. John Ronnie, farmer, said that be had been farming in. tho distiict since 1854, 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, tut not with Canada. If an award were made employment would bo given only to tho best men; the others would have a difficulty in getting employment. Mr Thorn: The award would operate without serious inconvenience to farmers P—l think so. Of course, at present I employ the men who can be got handy. Continuing, the witness stated thut New Zealand was nine times as good for grazing as Australia. New Zealand wheat yield per acre was three time* as great, but harvesting was easier ?n 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: Be paid about £4§o per annum m wages, which worked out at £83 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 fig""- **« thought Mr Lowrie would be aWe to make a fair comparison. He estimated the cost .of producing wheat at ds per bushel (Mr Jones slid that the average "price of wheat for tho. last fifteen years was 2s Bd, thus showing a loss of 4d per bushel on production). During harvest time his men were part £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 ot teamsters, as the farmer would not work his team more than eight hour*. He did not charge his man anything for keeping a horse; it would not nay him to keep it for Iβ a week. £oys generally were fairly weir treated, though on dairy farms they had a pretty rough time. In his opinion the workers should have the option of working by pieoe work or by the day. Mr Thorn: Would you go out of the farming business if an award were made giving higher wages ?-Jt would tend to put more land- into graes, tme I don't think it is going to wreck the "iSr Broadhead: He preferred present conditions to those £ ro ß™f* Jg the Union, but he thought that the farmers would have to face the new PC To 10 Mr Riisbridgo: Many of jne farmers in tho district bought UndjW lr. so the present high P«<» of land did not affect thorn adverse y UJthe improvements in machinery lest labour was employed, and harvesting was done more cheaply. . John Ober Hubex- £«* said that he received &|a day. He , paid 6s a week rent, and ""PP°«ed hie wife and five children. H« wife also went out to work. From Janu*S Ist to November 25th his earnings H< To Mr Kenuedr: On a drainage contract ho Jiad made 4s a day, workinfi in water, and biunnj: h» own gumboots At potato-dijiging ho liad made 7s 6d per day on piece-work digging in good crops. On poor crops his earninp? were much reduced. To Mr Eratis: On a t«n-ton crop he would' dig a ton of potatoes a day. He did not know any man who could disr. double that quantity. 1 To Mr Jones: He had earned £9 17s 3d for three weeks' threshing. Making allowances for wind and roin. ho would not put in on an average GO hours a w««k at threshing. He averaged four days a week casual work. He did not know that other men were engaged two months aheadj and were working every day. To Mr Thorn: The 60 hours did not i include waiting time, when he was under an .obligation to the "boss" to be about in case he was wanted. Rirhard Rowe, general labourer, Southbridge, stated that*he got6s a day and his dinner, and paid £17 rent per annum. He considered that the halfliohday would be workable, except during harvest time. Ho wae not in favour of contract work, as it had a tendency to lower prices, and young lads were talked into taking contracts at extremely low rates. It also kept bqys at home who should be in permanent billets.

To Mr Jones; Ho thought that day.

work in shearing woiild bo better than payment by tho hundred. On team work there was no need to regulate hours between a good man and his "boss." He thought that (ijwifal be paid 17s 6d a week, partly in order to safeguard tho billots of married men. He boliovod in preference to unionists. To Mr Thorn: If an employment book were kept at Leeston, the farmers would find hande more easily than they did at present. William Lilley, bouthbridge. ploughman, said that he was paid 22s (3d a week and found. He started with the horses at 6 a.m. and knocked off at 8 p.m. He considered that there was more responsibility and. work in •connection with • five home team than with a four horse team.

This concluded, the erjdeßoe for the Union.

Mr Jones, for tho farmere, called John, Smith, Killincjiy, labourer, who said that he rooeived 6e a, day, hnd paid a rent of Gβ per wook. He had, from hb employer, grasing for a oow. and firowood free. Hβ was .perfectly contented with hie Jl* started work on a farm at and at 17, when working horgeg, lie >raa paid 10e per week. He found that he could livo on his present wages, and save money. Hβ had never heard of any dissatisfaction in tfoe.'.diitriqt*,-.. Hβ" wotildi rather givo and take with his employer than work under the, proposed hard-and-fast rules. The Saturday half-holiday would/ fo cable , durnig harvest, or where men were working with'cotvs or teams. He preferred the contract system to day labour, as a contractor was hie own "boea," a.n4 couW work what houre he liked. ■ , To Mr Thorn: He made 7§ » day on contract at goree cutting. Hβ worked lea than eight ihoure a day, and did not "kill himself." The privilege of grazing his oow on his employer's graea was Wfire ?• per week to him. Ho had , _the loan of a horse and dray from hi» employer whenever he wanted it. . Mr Hbom eeid that ib* w4tn«a» m getting «ju»VtP 7f 6d per dcVi if h<j' put a mwnetary ralue on his pdrrvdleges.' Witness, continuing, said that «t 17 years lie ploughed seven eor«e day, <ia much 3S any wan. Hq did not con* pider Ihat he ww entitiedi to a mail's -wegoe, as he w«« outjy « learner. Mr Thorn: At »ev«n acre*•*• day you vera » jolly flood learner, (taiifijhtcrj To M% Jonoe: In oonaieoHon nitk all t<eanie the cood man. was left to hJnveelf. • . .. ■• . Gcoixe Brown, Lekeaide. plouchraea and farm hand, aaid tha*( the' good pjoufihman took ft pride in, Wβ horses, and did not want interference. He did not that n fartm could be nxirkea riniler eet oonditioms. Witneee vnae paid 21s per week, a hiHTvest bonus, and the free keep of a. horse (equal to Gi a week). If ilha Union eoale of wafien was brought in, both men and vroxdA get the sacic. In two rears and a half no bed. saved over £100. Hβ did not know any faran labourer who wanted the half-tholidoy. He aliwaya torik a fcalidny when lie wanted it, and ii> wae never objected to. The men in hia district wanted tJiin©* to remain, in their pre&cmt positaoiu The Board rose at 4 pm. Mr Ev*ne stated that he had eighteen , more farm lnbourera wlio deeired to giro evidence tSbot tlvey were perfectly satisfied with the present state of affaire, and fully t"wD-thi!rde of ttw» farmere present a-lso wislied to give evidence. The Chairman eakl that the Board would arrange for another eitting in Leestou. It could not be held until after the New Year.