FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13105, 2 May 1908, Page 5

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

SUMMING UP SPEECHES

At tie Supreme Court yesterday proceedings in the farm labourers' dispute before the Conciliation Board were resumed. All the members of the Board were present. Mr W. Minson presiding. Mr D. Jones, for the farmers, continued his analysis of the evidence given by the Union's witnesses on the subject of the abolition of tihe contract system, hie main contention being that ttwet of the Union's witnesses hod given indefinite testimony oca. tho subject-.

SOME UNIONISTS' PREFERENCES

Referring to the evidence adduced by the Union, Mr Jones said that one witness (Thomas), for instance, had stated that 'ho did not altogether believe in the- contract system": and ho (Mr Jonet>) supioosipd that if a man did not "altogether" believe in suicide he would not oommit it. and a man who did not "altogether" believe xn contract did not necessarily believe in its abolition. Later the Fame witness "could not say whether he had taken contract work because he preferred it, but he did pirefer it - — that, Mr Jones said, was a conundrum! Another witness (Koaino) statod that he- had earned 12s per day stooking, and had had to work "a little harder" tihsji men working by the 'xiour: further, he had stated that ho y.ould object to contract work because it was against tho Union's demands, wit at the present time he would not object- to two men getting together and mutually agreeing as to the rato at which work ehoaild be dene. Pnlford, a Temnka witness, who believed in hoeing turnips by contract, stated that ho preferred day labour—"ho would not work so hard if h» was on by day work" ; "he preferred day work •because he could go quietly along." Hodgkinsom, a Culverden witness, "did rot believo In tho contract system," yet ' :f master and man botlh wanted to work ono way ho would alJow them to do so." but "ho would not allow mem. to take worfc under the contract system. ,. Replying to Mr Thorn, the same witness said tnwt under sonfe conditions he might prefer tho contract system to daily wages, but he would prefer a shilling an hour," and "he would Ifko to see a man and his employer work in accordance with the wishes of both " but he would prefer to see regulation of wages and hours, that would bo more satisfactory still," The difference betweenwhat this witness "liked" and -what was ono that no fellow could understand"—usually W ™ a^ man " liked " he "preferred " The Chairman (jocularly): I s that logic? You might like a shilling but prefer a sovereign. Mr Thorn: It's farmers' logic! - Mr Jones (to the Chairman): That 13 only a question of quantity; I prefer the money, and the more the better! Continuing, he said that ono Union witness (Patterson) had stated that "he wa* not particular whether he worked by tlie hour or under the contract system bo long ac thero was enough nay in the matter." . Mr Jones, after concluding his analysis, held that the Union had not placed before the Board any reason for the abolition of the contract system, except Mr Pulford's reason that under the hour system he could go "more quietly along"; if there- was no work at all Mr Pulford ] could go more quietly still. WHAT FARM WORKERS WANTED. Turning to the evidence given by the ] workers called by the farmers on the j subject of tho contract system, Mr Jones quoted the statement of Bennett, that "men below tho average wanted the contract system abolished, whilst those above the average wanted it continued"; Hobbe, another worker, alleged that at work that men had only earned 4s per day at , he could earn 10s, I were increased he would prefer the con- , tract system. Berry had proved that at theeame work that some men oquid only 4&rn tucker at, others could make 20s per day. WAGES UNDER THE CONTRACT SYSTEM.

The fact that low wages had been earned under tho contract system proved nothing, and the Uoiion had bronght no evidence to eliow that contract work had lowered wages. The evidence the farmers had produced had proved conclusively "that where the farmer had-,work of a profitable nature •he was "prepared to let the working man share in a percentage of -those profits; further, it had shown that wages for . contract work' never, went below 7s, and went up to 20s per day; Gordon, tho Union's secretary afc AniberWs?, had etated.that he earned 18s 6d per day at gorso-grubbing; whjle the witness Berry had given figures relating to men, two of whom hod earned lls 9d.in four days, and their tucker tad cost 12s 6d, while, another man had earned, at exactly the samo clase of work, 3>20 6s 3d , in nineteen days. Evidence as to low wages earned under I contract was of no value unless tho I man who ,earned them was produced jand gave some- indication of the work I done. A vast amount of evidence had been given by farmers, and tho whole feeling of the farming community was against the abolition of the contract I system. To abolish tho system would be a eerious blow to the farmers and to the labourers. It was impossible for the farmer to supervise the workers, and he had to trust to the honesty of his men, as he was unable to com© jin touch with them all day. In town, when eight or ten men were employed on a job, they had to be supervised. Farmers wore ablo to do away with that supervision under the contract system, and it would bo a great injustice to the farmers and workers of New Zealand if the system were abolished. The.Union had led no evidence to prove . that there was any injustice under the present system, and the only possible reason for the demand that the contract system should bo abolished was simply that it was one of tho principles of Unionism, and because, without the abolition of. the system, it would be impossible for tho Union to gather into their fold tho country labourers.

THRESHING BY CONTRACT. Mr Jones said that as threshing was a business that stood apart from other farm contract work, ho would deal with it separately. The demands in connection with ' threshing work hod not been' included in the Union's original demands. He then went throughthe testimony given by the Union's witnesses on the subject and, referring to the witness J>aki, foe showed from the- evidence that that witness had not substantiated his statement that he earned only 42s per week after working from 12 to 14 hours per day; whilst the statement by Boroland that the payment worked out at Bjd per hour was arrived at by including in the time worked the time taken for meals and other time when tho wheels of i the machine were not going round. Ac to tho demand thai there shou2d be ih-ree bagmen, he stated that the whole experience in Canterbury had been that two men wore qua to. sufficient, and he pointed oust that no complaint had been brought before the Board from any bagman that the work was too hard for two bagmen. The witnesses for the farmers had stated that tho men-

engaged on threshing machines dad not -want any alteration from payment per thousand to payment by tie hour and thai they could- earn- more

ihem if .paid an hourly of Is 3d. Mr Cooper (Oxford) had quoted figures relating to the seasons from ltiOo to 1908 showing that the average earned per hour (under payment by the thousand.) had ranged from Is 2|d in 1908 to Is 10d in 1905. It had also been shown that the custom was that if the grain dfid not come down at the -rat© of at 75 "bushels per hour, the men wert^paid , by the hour; evidence had attso been given to' the effect that some method that tended towards epeed was necessary, and on© ■witness had stated tfooft liis objection to the hour system was- that under it threshing would not be finished till ■winter. The demand that the threshing machine owner should provide the men's food had been shown to be unworkable. The evidence proved that men and masters were against the Union's demands; it was also proved again that the men were not con- , suited by the Union when the demands were drawn up. The evidence of the Union's witnesses was of a very mixed kind; there was really no emphatic desire amongst them i'or a change; tho oridence of most of them that he had quoted proved conclusively that master and maji were working harmoniously, and' that the men were earning exceptionally good wages under the existing sysfc«rn. which they wanted continued. Mr Taibot bad stated that men had struck against tlie hour system and had Rone back to the oontract system ; Mr Trottar had deposed that c. man who had gone round collecting tho men's votes on the subject had been wimble to get any of his (Mr Talbot's) men to voto for tho hour system. It was the views of tho men actually engaged in threshing operatione, and not those of persons outside, that should carry weight with the Board. If the Union had represented the men in the ind/ustry and if the demands hod been submitted to tho men, they woufld have been on a different footing. A system that had been- perfected—and he knew what he was talking- about, and thero w«s nothing in the world aheadof it— should not be experimented with by clwnging it for the hour cystem. THE UNION'S WITNESSES. Ho had stated that the bulk of the Union's evidence had been given by casual han-de, and he had found, on going through the evidence, that many who described themselves as '•ploughmen," had mot accurately described themselves. He had made out a list of those that ho -considered were engaged in doing ploughing and they numbered eighteon. (Mr Jones gave tho names of tho witnesses, and in several instances gave reasons, when necessary, for his classification). The Union had called only two permanent day labourers; one cadet, and one rouse- j about. Of the other Union witnesses one was a storekeeper's assistant, one a town labourer, one a boarding-house keeper, one "a labourer in a.brick yard, ono a navvy for a builder, two were engaged principally doing road work, one was a ploughman and waggoner from the North Island and he had no description for Messrs D'Arcy, Kennedy, Thorn, and Baldwin. Mr Thorn: I was a farmers' witness. Mr Jones: Mr Thorn came in as a philanthropist! Mr Thorn.: I haven't put in my bill yet, but I intend doing so; I'm afraid you have gone broke! . Continuing, Mr Jones said that'ih the above eummary he had not included Union witnesses who had given evidence in the shipowners' case. CASUAL MEN AND HOLIDAYS. /■ It would he eeen, therefore, that the bulk of tho Union evidence was from i casual day labourers and from men who were outside the farming industry. The trouble with these men was that they did not get sufficient wages, and that they wanted preference to unionists. Hβ contended that, with reference to the question of holidays, ■ these casual labourers had no right to speak. It was easy to find in the evidence of these witnesses statements that it was a practicable thing to have a weekly half-holiday in connection with team, work; but they had no right to speak on, that subject J they were not authorities onr»i>loaghing; and he intended, when dealing with the Union's cviT .tend that the ; evide"Beo of: casual" da* labourers was of-no value." H<e; tookifc.that the Boarddesiredto know from the workers themselves who followed any particular part of the whether or not they wanted any alteration of existing conditions; consequently the casual day labourer had no voice in tho question of holidays, for he only asked to be paid for the time actually worked. That being so, thon there were only two of the Union witnesses who had a right to speak among the' day labourers; the other day labourers asked for a shilling an hour, and it made no difference .to .the farmer many holidays they took. "

CASUAL WORKERS AND THE LIVING WAGE. The Union had brought no evidence,' except in the case of two'witnesses, to prove that tho wages at present paid did noix constitute a living wage, He intended to analyse the evidence of these two men, who got 6s per day when they had no contract work to do, and who could always got work at 6s when the- higher work ' was nob available. The day labourers who gave evidence, for the farmers had said! that they were perfectly satisfied; but the evidence of ihfi day labourers who wanted the contract system abolished was that of were dissatisfied, and of men that tho farmers could not carry on the work of their farms with ; it was the evidence of men who lived in the township and who refused to go out and partake of the privileges given the man working for 6s per day. The farmer could not be asked to change his whole system simply to taio a few men of this description, who did not go out into the country except when they could not get other worlw Mr Jones then took the evidence of one Unjon witness, and showed that he earned 32s per week, lesp Is per week for the feed of a cow, and. got lls per week for board of another-, farm labourer, and that, after deducting the sum'that the witness stated it cost his wif*», child., the boardJer and himself to live on ; there was a profit to the witness of 12s 6d per week. In addition, Mr Jones submitted that the witness had not allowed sufficient in his estimate for his enhanced earnings during harvest. The witness's own figures showed that he was saving on the wages he got. The other Union "witness was the secretary of one of tho farm labourers' branches, who gave details of his earnings for a year, which totalled £71 9s 6d. Mr Jones showed from the evidence that the work detailod only covered a period of thirty j weeks and two days. What this man asked for, Mr Jones contended, was a wage sufficient for him to live on and allow liim to walk abont for about twenty-two weeks in the year. The amount" the witness had earned in thirty weeks was a long way ahead of what a city worker earned, "and as a statement* tHat a man could not lire on 6s per day, it was of no -value to tho Board. On tho other hand, the evidence of casual day labourers, called by the farmers, showed that on wages at- 6s per day and contract worg at 10s, 12s, or 15s per day, they could earn from £90 to £100 per annum, with free house land to graze a cow and grow potatoes on.

He was proceeding to quote evidence m support of theso contentions, when the Board adjourned till Monday at 11 a.m.