SHEARERS' DEMANDS

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 48, 25 August 1921, Page 7

SHEARERS' DEMANDS

LAID BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT

A DOMINION AWARD SOtfGHT

HOW DOEIS THE INDUSTRY

STAND?

The demands of the New Zealand Shearers and Shed Hands' Union for a revision of wages and working conditions are being Considered by the Arbitration Court to-day. The matters in dispute have already been partially considered by the Court in Dm,ediri and Christchurch, 'but no pronouncement has yet been made. As a result of the present deliberations, however, the Court will give its decision in the form of a Dominion award. On the Bench were Mr. Justice Frazer, Mr. W. Scott (employers' assessor), andMr. J. M'Cullough (employees' assessor). Messrs. W. H. Nicholson and C. iPrime appeared-for the sheepowners, and Mr. C. Grayndler for the union. In opening the union's case, Mr. Grayndler said that he felt that a heavy responsibility rested upon him. ' This country's wealth and property' depended, in the main, on its rural workers. Th©j farming community of this country, during recent years, was never so prosperous, and this applied to all classes of rural producers. It was true that the prices of 'wool had gone Sown during 1 the past few months; but the value of the labour performed by the shearer and shearing-riled worker had not diminished; neither had the cost of living been reduced to any noticeable extent. Again, the present wool prices' could not be taken-as a" guide for the Court in the fixation of shearers and shed hands' wages, for the reason that the January and June wool prices were more than siibstantial prices (or the growers The bulk of New--Zealand's wool dip,; especially the North Island; was sold at, the January sales under commandeer prices, and the June sales were also substantial. Therefore, only a" smajl proportion of our wool was b"eing sold at prices quoted by the other side, and the owners well knew that the present: low prices were in respect to a' g.fade of wool that never demanded high Iprices" : THE STANDARD WAGE. Apart from prices, the Court had laid down a principle, viz., that the first charge on any industry was standard wage, a. wage which would provide the worker with.the means of living up to the present standard of civilised life. "I have informed the Court," said Mr. Grayndler,' "that the men I' represent demand more than a standard wage, such the standard wage is generally understood. This claim is being more and more insisted upon by the workers, and more and more resisted by the employers. Their attitude, for all- time, has been the lowest wage and the poorest conditions possible. "The claim for more than a standard wage may be not now recognised by this Court;, nevertheless, we make it now with the clear, consciousness that in the not distant future it will be heard arid conceded. We realise that while the law remains, it compels observance,, and we are here to make the best, not the worst, of the Court.' ''During the fat years in the wool in_du.4ry, the lion's share was reaped by.' the owners, and had the men been 'getting 50 per cent, more than the:rates they got during the fat years they would not have been . getting more than the standard wage as the phrase is generally understood. I mean by this that since the "award now prevailing jjfwas granted, the 'Court lias awarded cost-of-living bonuses of 13s a week; but the bonuses have not been enjoyed by the shearers, except in very isolated cases. This shows that the present rate for shearers has seriously declined in value since it was awarded, so that if the present -rate was a standard rate when the award was filed, it is not so now." , Mr. Grayndler referred ■. to certain statistics ■already^ laid before the Court at Christchurch, and argued that the Court must admit that-the claims of the union would' not permit"' the ■ average shearer to. make ..more ,than a. living waget '.■'•' Extracts from the Commonwealth Arbitration reports of 1905 to 1907 were cited to show that the average weekly "earnings in 638' different sheds, where 9326 shearers were employed to shear fifteen million, sheep of various classes, were £& 16s 4|d for machine shearers and £2 16s 9d for blade shearers, gross.The average earnings put in by the respondents, covering three successive years, where 7119 shearers were eriiployed to! shear 11,500,000 sheep at 481 different sheds, are shown to be £3 7s 10 l-3d for machine shearers, and*£2 12s B|d for hand shearers, but the president estimated the average earnings of an ordinary shearer \ throughout New South Wales to bo £3 per week,,and his net earnings to be £2' 3s per week. These, weekly earnings would again be reduced by payments for meals and beds while travelling from shearing shed to shearing sEed. ' After quoting further statistics, Mr. Grayndler said that with New Zealand's wetter climate an average of £2 12s 6d per week for shearers can be taken as nearly about right. ■ ' "■"I. do not think it would be possible to furnish this Court with more evidence as to the average earnings of shearers than that furnished the Court in the case referred to in Australia," he said, "and, an my opinion, it should prove conclu-' sively that if' the decision for "the shearens and shed hands in this dispute contains a measure of fairness, the whole of our claims must be conceded." THOSE FIGURES. * The average weight of a fleece in New Zealand was-7£lb, and therefore the shearing of 100 sheep yielded Is a sheep. If an average price of"6d a pound was secured, the value of a sheep's fleece was 3s 7id, in which case the shearing cost would absorb slightly more, than one-quarter of the money return. An average price of 9d a pound and the fleece, would bring 5s S^d, so that shearing costs would absorb less than l-sth 67 the return. If an average price of Is a pound was secured, 7s 3d would be the value of the fleece, and shearing costs, would come to less than l-7±h of the yield. Over the whole course of the years 1908-1919 it was fair to strike an average of Is a pound. Of this the sheareTs (including shed hands, classers, cook, ex.; perts) would get less than one-seventh." Tho shearers, when the price to the contractor was £5 a hundred, get just about one-third of the value of the wool shorn, and this one-third included the contractor's profit. It would take 106^1b at 9d per lb to pay the whole of the claims which we are asking. That was based on the assumption that £4 10s covered the whole cost of shearing, but, based on the employers' assumption of £5, adding the extra 10s to cover our claims, it wbuld take 1201b of wool at 9d to meet our obligations. Therefore, in the first case, the employers would have 618^1b, and, in the second case, 6051b. If-that was not Hie lion's share, what was? The avernge price -per lb received for wool over'the period 1914-1919 was considerably over Is—it was nearer Is 6d

than Is 3d.' If the sheepowners, of their own volition, in 1908 could afford to concede a minimum of , what was practically 22s 6d a hundred, the shearers during the whole war and post-war period up to the end of the official year 1919 were considerably underpaid. If wages were entitled to accord with prices they should have been more than double those awarded by the employers in 1908. COMPARISONS. - As a matter of fact up till 1917 wages were never higher than 25s a hundred, and in some cases did not reach that figure. In 1917 an award granting/a minimum of 27s 6d was made with, a currency of two years; and since th'en for two.^easons, *a minimum rate of 30s had applied. ' This • meant then that, although the average annual return from exported wool since the first year was more than double the value of the return in 1908, the shearers' increases in wages up to 1917 were 11 per cent, on those of 1908; from 1917-1919 "their increases were tut 22 per cent, on the 1908 rates, while in the following seasons, when the rate was 30s'a hundred, the increase (7s 6d) only'represented 33 per lucent, advance on the 1908 rates.'. ... • At the .most then (and' this for only two years) the shearer only-received a 33 per cent, increase on 1908 figures" while the employers' income" increased by over 100 per cent, oh an average — and this while the cost of - living - had jumped somewhere near 80 per cent; '.. " It is surely the most obvious, injustice, after these millions have. been reaped over a lengthy period of years, to propose a reduction of shearers' wages because one season's prices happen to have slumped—l assert slumped,, bufc I assert tljat they are still much higher over, all classes of wool than those prevailing In 1908,'' .said Mr. Grayndler. "We, 6f• course,;/admit tha(< there is a. slump, but, against this, we contend there are many evidences of improvement." - ' i . •. FORTY-FOUR HOUR WEEK. The forty-four hour week was now enjoyed by a great number of workers employed in . other industries throughout this Dominion. The. employers argued" that, if the present working week ,w*s cut down by four hours v and ■■' twenty minutes,, considerable dislocation,.' land possible losses in stock would occur., „ No other industry compelled its workers to occupy the number of hours which the shed-hand was compelled to occupy, and for which he was only paid for eight hours and twenty ■ minutes' work: Today, the operation of the forty-four hour week throughout the whole Commonwealth was general,,and if it could apply without loss to a continent like; Australia, then it would operate with" as much satisfaction here. "Boiled dqwn," saidi Mr. Grayndler, "this Court must fix a wage which will allow .the average, shearer and shed hand a standard wagej and the evidence in Dunedin and Christchurch made it plain that the shearers and shed hands have not, ni-the past, enjoyed anything in the vicinity of.a standard wage; and.this in' the, face of long hour#and: the laborious nature'of the work. They have often to journey far, and travelling expenses "are high, ,and, if • the shearing be "too long protracted at any shed through wet weather or breakage of machinery, , botJi shearer and shed hand lost his appointments .at other sheds." ' . .s „■ MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS.. „■ Mr. .Grayndler next addressed himself to the claims of workers in -other departments of the industry, pressers, • enitchers, cooks, etc., and' to various matters of minor import. '; The union held that if an employee engaged by a . slieepowner had to travel a long distance tr the work, the employer should pay .locomotion expenses at' least one way from the'-nearest railway station to the place of work. . " ■' . If, by bad machinery and the employ-1 ers' refusal to keep it in good working and running order, K the'workers' earnings were encroached^ upon, the employer, should makexgood the loss, especially s when it was owing to his own carelessness. J . .'. :' "The term of award is a matter which the Court may certainly consider," saidMr. Grayndler, in conclusion, "especially when it must grant the workers of this industry a standard wage. Possibly, the Coiirt. may stabilise-the wages of this industry until April, 1922, but one thing I feel certain of and that is—that if the Court grants a"' standard wage to these workers, it must give an increase per hundred to shearers, and also an increase to the. hourly and weekly workers employed in the industry." DEMANDS AND COUNTER-PRO-POSALS, / The demands and counter-proposals as to wages, etc., are as follow; the employers' proposals being given in brackets:— Shearing by hand: £1 5s per 100, with rations (£l, with rations). By machine: £1 15s per 100 (£1). Lambs: £1 15s per 100 (fit) An'allowance of 6s per 100 to be made jn cases where the men find themselves "in rations (4s). ■' '• . . Rate for stud sheep to be determined between employer and shearer on the work. Shearing rams over six months and double fleeced sheep, double ordinary rates (hogget rams, ratel and a'half, other rams, double rates). The union claimed a, 44-hours week, to be worked between the \hours of 7.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., with two breaks of half an hour and one of an hour, from Monday to Friday inclusive, and from 7.30 a.m. to noon, with half an hour's break, on Saturday. •'- The' employers proposed that the hours of shearing should be from 5 a.m.** to 5 n.m., with intervals to tie agreed .upon, and that shearing should ,stop at i p.m. on Saturdays except when the 48 hours and twenty minutes' work was done before noon, when work should be stopped tlten. ' : In several respects the proposals and counter-proposals were much the same, and, in addition to many mindr matters, the proposals and counterproposals Jiad reference to matters dealt Ayith by the advocates for shearers and employers'in their addresses to the Court. The union proposed that the award snould come. into force as from Ist September, 1921, and should continue in force until 28th February, 1923, but the employers asked that the award should continue in force till 2_Bth-February, 1924. . ■ Evidence, brief, was then called upon- the points in dispute, following which,', .the', case , for;., the. "ent^ plovers was opened by-M1". Nicholson. "SOON BE BANKRUPTS." ; The employers, he said, in view of the special rates given in times of abnormal conditions,' now ,felt', justified in asking for a substantial reduction in rates under present circumstances, for the industry wac not in a position to pay those rates which had been the rule during the commandeer period. "Unless a substantial improvement takes place," he said, "the majority'of sheepfaamea's must soon become bankrupts. The primary producer is of necessity the first to feel the effect of a drop in prices, and 'it is only natural that, tho labour employed must be affected in sympathy. We have, unfortunately reached a position in the sheep industry that has no paraJle' in the histpry of the Dominion, and no useful pose can be gained by camouflaging the position. The money is not there, it is not procurable from the produce in suffi- : cient quantity to pay the rates- that weroj made possible only by the high prices received during the commandeer period, and It is absolutely necessary that the shearers and shed hands, with, other' workers, must bear their share of tha burden that is thrown on the coutnTy by

the disastrous drop in the values of wool and live stock. It is manifestly unfair for these workers to take iip tlio •ithtudo that they and they only must not be affected in any way. On. the contiary, the worker, 'in common with the employer, must be prepared to take, a lower return'for his labour, and practise d reasonable amount of economy inlus expenditure, and thus adjust himself to the ultered conditions. If this ' is not done, then nothing but disaster' can accrue to both tho workr and the employer.", .. » The only way a sheep-fanner could live to day was by reducing the costs of operation iii the industry, continued Mr. .Nicholson. Since the employer found the worker with everything but clothing, 20s per hundred was a reasonable ra.te, and, if fixed as a minimum, concessions might be made as to the shearing of hard sheep and in country where much time was lost on account of bad weather. Living conditions, he would point out, wero appreciably easier than they were in the period 1917-1919, on which period the offer was based. "' APPALLING DEMANDS." j "When we consider the inability of 1 tho industry to-day to pay even pre-war v lates, the demands made are nothing less ' than appalling, and the ignorance or carelessness showii by the union 'is apmllmg and tragic. Statements have been repeatedly . made that despite the award no shearing will be done under '35s per. 100. We, have no doubt of our ability' to obtain labour at reasonable rates ,' in fact, offers are coming in freely to shear at the price offered, and we ask ■the Court to give employers the same .right to deal with this matter of payment as that which"is' so arbitrarily ■ taken to themselves by the union's representatives. 'These statements are nothing more than a delibarate flouting beforehand of any award which the , Court may make, and it is manifestly unfair to bind the employer to allow the ■woikers' representatives a free hand to use any;methods they'choose to enforce their demands."

The necessaries which shearers would ,pui chase, said Mr. Nicholson, were rapidly receding in price, and it was quite on the cards that during the coming season 20s would Ijave the same purchasing power as 30s last season. THE INDUSTRY MUST GO ON. • ( It had been suggested that if the industry'could not pay its way it should go out of existence, but though such a tuggestion might be made in regard to a secondary industry ■it was absurd to suggest such a thing when the vital primary industries ,\verei being considered -•■■ ':'" " ■ The great body of sheepfarmers in an ordinary year were far from the wealthy j "capitalists" they had been painted, but as a rule were struggling^, make both ends meet, and were generally much harder working men than the shearers.; As the rate' of shearing alone equalled,: or exceeded the value of the wool, the , employers found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to come, to the Court for protection against jthe extrava"gant demands of the representatives of a small section of workers, who were evidently wholly intent upon extracting the last penny without thought of where the policy would ultimately lead the com-) 'munity. < "I may.; say,' 1 he added, "that a large number of shearers have called upon me, expressing'; th<eir'satisfaction with the terms offered by 'us. They agreed almost unanimously; that taking into account the prices of: wool and stock the offer is a fair one and reasonable."

THE GOLDEN YEAKS A MYTH. The "golden years," said the 'speaker, wei c the reverse of golden, for when the

position was analysed it was seen that

the extra costs had more than dissipated ,the higher prices received. The farmer ■would have been very much better off had there' been .no .''golden 'years."

. It had been .stated; that the increase in rates auked ;y/ould' make very little difference to. the' individual employer, but taken in the aggregate the figures ■which he would- hand to the Court would show, the urgent necessity of a reduction in labour costs, that a readjustment was absolutely necessary. Five shillings per' hundred would mean a cosb to the industry of about £60,000,, and if the extra amount asked for other shed workers were paid, the increase would be at .least £150,000 in wages. It was \evident,'Mr. "Nicholson held, that sheep-owners could not face such a bill to-day. ..' ■ • ■ .. -.. ' ■ - ' The present .award's provision for meals was working . satisfactorily, and there was no general desire for a. reduction in working hours, the proposals concerning which would mean loss to the employer, reduced earning power, and needless added suffering to the stock. ■ Mr. Nicholson spoke emphatically regarding clause 2:, The only inference which could be taken from that was that a deliberate attempt was being made to run the shearing shed frdrn the union •• office, irrespective of whether the men . employed were unionists or not. Shearers themselves'realised that a give-and-take spirit was necessary' when shearing ewes with" lamb. Referring to tho claim for three minutes off each run, Mr. Nicholson said that this meant the loss of a whole; day per man per week, and showed how the union was splitting hairs, being hard pressed to find oause for complaint. ' The proposal that a commiitee, as well as the workers' repre^ sentative, should go to a disputes conference was characterised as another objectionable feature. , ■ . . The demand that, shears should be found',free would lead to as to the quality. One pair of shears fixed to suit one man would not suit another. The earning power ol the worker was quite on a par with that of other skilled men,) suqh as carpenters, who found the small tools connected with their trade. Mr. Grayndlor's statement that employers were deliberately neglecting-the machinery, with the object of forcing shearers to" bring their own hand-pieces, was not proved in the slightest degree. Underlying the proposal to cut out permanent hands, which Mr:: Nicholson said was arbitrary and unjust, was the idea .to...bring the' whole .of the.permanent hands under an award, in spite of the- previous ruling of the Court that an award for farm labour, was not practicable. The proposal would bring about a similar; position as with the musterers, and would be especially hard on the man with a small' sheep run, jvherp, from ,;motiyes '©f - economy, there might be tho necessity of utilising labour'Tt yearly rates, although it might' iiot bo expert' enough; to , earn award rates. ■ . ■ ,'. ; : < , :".. - Demands relating to rations, payment of fares/ engagement of local men, breakage of machinery, lighting of the ' dining-room, daggy sheep, and preference to unionists were, said Mr.: Nicholson, unreasonable and inequitable. The .employers submitted that preference to unionists was unworkable and undesirable, and a classification for crutchers was out of the question. A STATEMENT CHALLENGED. "There is not a single shed in New Zealand that would justify the employment of an expert on Australian lines, 1' said Mr. Nicholson in regard to an award for experts, for which there was jio need or justification.- The statement that experts were included in the Australian award was not correct. In any case; the. evidence at Christchurch showed that there was not a sufficient number of qualified men in New Zealand. .'.:,..,.. In conclusion, Mr. NichoLson said that the evidence put' forward by the .union was of a negative character], and

in no instance was any real justification for the demands shown. "The men's own evidence throughout has been," he said, "a complete vindication of the employers, and shows that they have been liberally met where possible. The evidence gives the impression of something being held back, and not as being the whole truth."

(Proceeding.)