THE WATERSIDER AND THE FARMER.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 11 September 1926, Page 6

THE WATERSIDER AND THE FARMER.

(To the Editor)

Sir, —On Friday last, under the heading of “Hairy Production,” you made a comparison between the' wateridea- and the fanner which would, almost imply that the former was in a most favoured position compared with the latter. You tell us that “because the watersider supplies a limited focal market, because he iiis organised, and because his organisation is not subject to competition, it is possible for him in some measure to control the market price of his commodity —his labour. Contrasted with this we have the Taranaki daily farmer who “has absolutely no control over the market price of his product.” I suggest that this contrast between the two ca-ses is overdrawn. It can, for instance, hardly be argued that the watersider supplies a limited local market” he enjoys any power to control the pricp of his labour. Indeed the very f act that the market is “ limited” and limited beyond all power of the watefsider to increase it, is a factor counting heavily against him m any attempt to hold up the price of his labour. It is true that organisation lias helped him to meet this handicap to some extent, but. when you mention as a factor increasing his power of control the fact that “his. organisation is not subject; to competition, ’ ’ you 'again overstate the position. Until very recently watersiders’ unions enjoyed no power to limit membership. Any worker temporarily unemployed in some other industry could “blow down to. tho wharf, join the uniion, and compete merrily for "tliiei limited laniouirb or \\oilv available. Watersider,s’ unions have recently won the right to limit then membership, but'only in collaboration with the employers, and the number is invariably fixed -high enough, to leave* a surplus over the requirements of all but exceptionally busy days, iso that there is competition within the organisation practically all the time fo-r what work uis 'available. Moreover, the limitation on membership does , not operate so as to allow the unionists to monopolise the available work when at rush times there is more than can be handled: by the full membership. At such times outside labour is freely employed after alii, imionists. have .been called. The limited! membership' has no power to exclude tills competition and to spread the available work over a longer period, the 'oiilv advantage of the limitation being that it secures the. available) work, when the quantity is limited, to those who are permanently dependent upon this employment; This is suroiy a' reasonable protection for the man on the waterfront, and is regarded by watersiders a.s the most .substantial privilege won in recent years. Buit m no sense does it amount to a protection of the watersiders’ “standard or living” against outside competition. Ho is -still subject to keen competition from within, the organisation when woa-k is scarce and from outside the ranks when work is over-plentiful. It would therefore be erroneous to .suggest that tbo watersider has any special! power to prortect his standard of living which other sections of the community do, not eurjoy. It is also erroneous to argue about the “standard of living” at all unless some account is taken of the regularity or otherwise of the employment. And what occupation in blew Zealand ais more subject, to fluctuations in this, respect than that of the watersider. So while it may b© possible to show that when at work the watersider may earn a daily wage which perhaps exceeds, the miserable -sweated wage for which so many “farmers” are ready- to work, it is useless trying to compare -their “standards of living,” unless adequate allowance has been made -for the precarious and irregular nature of the employment in the ease of the watersider. Your statement of the position might well be revised, then, to. read -as follows: “In spite of the fact that the watersider works for a local market, which is strictly limited, and ,iin. spite of the fact that'his organisation' is subject to competition from without when there is any danger that an abiifthance of work may operate to his advantage, and in spite of the fact that when work is scarce in relation to the number seeking it, his organisation has no power to secure employment for all; yet, because he is organised, he at least has the assurance that when employment is available lie will he able to sell his labour at rates fixed by the Arbitration. Court; but in tbo fixing of these rates lie himself has little Influence, and certainly not sufficient, to over-ride any general economic conditions .operating in favour of a. fall in 'wages, and the only assurance ho has is that they will be fixed at such a totally inadequate level that if he is a married man with more than two ,children, his earnings will be completely absorbed in keeping his wife and the first two children, and a kind paternal Government, which lor years lias preached to him the duty of prolific parentage, will come to bis rescue by giving him the magnificent >sum of two shillings a Week to keep each o£ tho others on.” When we have made allowance for these various matters, the watersider -is little, if anything, better off than the farmer, even if wfe allow that the latter has “absolutely no control over the market price of his product.” But even this latter Statement is exaggerated. At Itast it cannot be accepted ,as so literally true as to imply that the working fa,rmer enjoys no protection whatever for his ‘standard -c,f living,” There are broad economic tendencies at work which do give at least some protection. For. instance, even if we -assume -an exceptionally severe fall in the price of one of our staple products, say dairy produce, it is unlikely that -all primary products will fall to a. like extent. The -farmer is protected, then, to the extent that he has aw ays somie prospect of turn-ina: his resources to some alternative use. Then, too. just as rising prices fo-r primary produce bring little permanent benefit to the working farmer, inasmuch a- a they become capitalised in inflated land values and so absorbed in interest Charges, until, the net .return to- the working farmer is about the same as it wits at the lower level, so thfe. reverse process must in the course' of time oper-

ate in a similar manner. If the prices of iproduoe fell to hailf, tike working farmer, whose standard.’ of living already compares unfavourably 'with that of .the watersider, would not be reduced in anything like the same degree. His standard probably could not 'be reduced at all. What'would happen would be a fall in land vaues involving a reduction in the interest bill, but leaving toe working farmer dn about the same posi r tion as before, namely, round ..about ‘•the bread line,” or on the standard allowance of £lO a month from the loan company. I would like to enlarge upon the further contrast you draw 'between “the New Zealand trade unionist'’ who, when he fears that bis standard of living its in jeopardy, hastens to the Arbitration Court,” and “the farmer,” for whom “there is no Arbitration Court.” _ It is, of course, misleading to ispeak of the Arbitration Court as if it ’were scone benevolent .institution with itdoors ever wide open to .receive the trade unionist and afford him complete protection against a lowering of has standard. In fact, if the unionist has just come under a new award when the danger threatens him he will not be aible to “hasten” to the court for perhaps two years, until the expiry of the award. In. the meantime the danger to his “standard of living,” if it came from a threatened a’ise n -bile cost of living, -might have materialised tin very definite form. And, on the other hand, the unionist whose wages are stabilised over a period of two or three years by an award, may find himself precluded from sharing in any increase in general prosperity which may take place during that period. It is, of course, manifestly impossible to secure to the working farmer even the limited protection which the Arbitration Court secures to the unionist go long as the former 1 remains firmly wedded to .a land .system which fairly rapidly converts any increase in produce prices into an increase in land values, and iso absorbs the benefit iii bigger interest charges, a system under which the sweated labour of the man with the big family and the docile wife is a perpetual menace to the istandards of the more ambitious working farmer. It is only necessary to mention that when one Well-known “farmer” in this district, presumably iii order to induce them to “produce -more,” reduced the shares of his sharemiiilkers from 33 1-3 per cent to 30 per cent., and when the .sharemiilkers concerned showed enough independence to leave, the ‘farm-ew’ concerned had no difficulty in replacing them, and the nature of the threat to the standard of the working farmer will be clear. As for the suggestion that when the mice of his produce falls the way for the farmer to protect himself is to “produce more” : How much longer .ire the newspapers of this country going to continue offering such fatuous advice? If world prices are low it su.re*',y means that supplies'are over-plenti-ful in -relation .to the available purchasing power of the consumers. How is this going to lie remedied by .still further increasing the supply ? A limited -section of the producers might gain some temporary advantage by producing more, and so capturing a larger share of the available, market, 'but they could only do so on the assumption that other producers were willing for the few -to thus “steal a march on them.” If all adopted the same tactics —as they would if it promised a remedy—the futility of the proceeding would soon be obvious, in. a further lowering of prices. How often da we seriously consider tackling the trouble from tne other end, namely, by increasing the purchasing- power of the consumers, and ,so helping to bring demand into relation to the over-plenti-ful -supply ? The usual experience when any .section, of wage-earners is fighting to protect its standard of living, in other words -their power to purchase food and other essentials, ijs to find the “producers” of the food, etc., ranged against them. If the -shipping combine attacks the wages of its seamen, .does the- “producer” stand, by his customer and’ demand that his wages be protected? No; instead, -his hair bristles, his eyes flash, his l speech becomes incoherent, he grabs a baton, and hastens with all speed to become the dupe of the shipping combine in that most- despicable of all .occupations, .strike-breaking. I admit there x*re many honourable, exceptions, but this is -the usual suicidal policy. When the nolde effort succeeds and the seamen’s wages are reduced, and when the employing class, flushed with victory, proceeds to attack the wage standards of other large sections of the working class—coal miners, cot-ton-spinners, iron and steel workers, etc., and when the reduced- wages reflect themselves, as -they inevitably must, in lower prices for their produce, the strike-breaking fraternity who -are most -responsible are also the most .surprised. Is the time not ripe for dropping the campaign .for “more production” and concentrating on the other campaign for more equitable distribution of what is produced? Until we have some guarantee that what is produced will be -fairly distributed, it is waste of time advocating “increased production.” But given -an equitable distribution of what is -produced; tlierO would be no need to .preach, the duty of more production. Under such an arrangement it would he to the interest of all to- see that the productive resources of .society were used to the fullest .advantage and such problems as those of ‘limited markets” and. -limited opportunities of employment itced no longer perplex mankind. —I am, etc., W. A. SHEAT. Hawera. Sept. 4, 1926.