North Canterbury Threshing Mill Dispute

Maoriland Worker, Volume 10, Issue 422, 9 April 1919, Page 8

North Canterbury Threshing Mill Dispute

EVIDENCE GIVEN BY UNION MEMBEES. (CoXTIN't'ED.) Robert E«Jd: I am a tiiresUittg; miii -*v-ork«r -pritb. SO years' <»3ci>GX-icii<:<? m Xorth "and South Canterbury. Having worked under both the, systems, 1 much prefer the hourly system and food t'-mnd. Air. Grayndler: Has it. ever occurred that, after earning a few pounds on a. aiiil, owing to w«t weather and wind the whol c of tho amount has been eaten up in food and cook's wages?—lesMy. Sheat: How long is it since you worked in North Canterbury:—Four \-eur=. I have worked live years in Wuimate and ten years dovvn South. Did you go through the- whole seasons in. North Canterbury without j leaving the mills?— Yes. i .Mr. Grayndler: Do they have tho same number of men on the South Canterbury mills as in North Canterbury?— Eleven men on Uie mil) in South Canterbury and nine in NorthCanterbury. I do not consider it possible to work a mill properly with nine men. .Michael Moloney: I am a threshing mill worker, with 14 years' experience— six in North Canterbury, three in South Canterbury, and five, in Southland. I Jiave worked oil some of tho best mills in North Canterbury, and could not brake ih c same wage as 1 receive now in South Canterbury. The dinorenee is the cto of food, which runs into 25 per lent, of the cheque. In South Canterbury We get the same amount of money »nd" found. Contract work ul*o entails much harder work. Mr. Grayndler: Would it be better it there weiv as many men employed on th e North Canterbury mills as in South Canterbury?— Yes. Otago and Southland have two men extra. If tlie system' were the same in North Canterbury as in South, would it be an mjurv to the mill-owners: —They could uV. it better in North Canterbury than rtoth.. U is easto country to shift from place to place on, and the ground is harder. While- in North Canterbury, did you see any discontent among the nullworkers generally?— Yes; over the food. Tho cooks as a rule are not competent, and there is nobody to control (the purchasing of food. In South Canterbury. where the mill-owner finds th e food, we jet better tucker. Under the contract system, 1 have .seen mills pull out of farms because the farmers have complained of the stuff being put through :oo fast. Air. Sheat-. 'What was your cheque lor South Canterbury for last y^ar?—Somewhere about ,£BO for 10 weeks, clear of Can you explain why all -th© witnesses seem to come from South Canterbury to givo evidence:—l do-not know why.Do you mean that under the contract system it is a general rule for th c i'- uraier to hound *he men on 10 do more work?—lf is in our own 'interest to •,peed-up. Under th e 'contract system you are paid by results and under the liouriy ;ystem you are protected if the grain is not there?—lt is the food that makes the difference. Tire hourly system in South Canterbury is 2j- an hour and found. You say you earned £80 in one sea - -5011. Did you have any wet weather?— About 12 days. How many hours did you work under this hourly system per day?— As. many *s 13} some days. W e start at 5. Are you aware that you have 'told the Court that you work practically 12 hours a day to get £>> a week?—l said about .£5. In my six years' experience Df the contract, system 1 never made wages on it. How many hours a day did you work in North Canterbury?—At times I have worked longer hours and e-trned less oioney. George McCormack: I have been working for Powell, of Waddington, who makes it a principle to go eL>thcr by contract or hour. Some seasons the crop.runs in such a way that the hourly ay stem is preferable, and, taken in a general way, the hourly system, pays the worker better. When working under tho contract system the worker does, not get justice. If there is plenty of straw and no gram, you have to jf-ress yourself to get on to the contract rate.' All the men working on my mill would prefer the hourly system and found. The bagman left the mill because h 0 was not spreading the sheaves fast enough. Ho was a practical man, which shows that the mill-owner does force th 0 pace. Where is tho extra man on Powell's mill?—H© is put on dray lo fork Well, is ho not making the bandintter speed-up ? — Yes. Mr. Grayndler: We are asking for three men on the bag. He has put tlie extra man on the dray. J. P. Bashford: 1 am a threshing mill worker on Judson's mill at Waddington. I have been there about eight or nine day.s. I have earned about JiS, out of which I have to pay «the food bill. Mr. Grayndler: How many mun left the mill? —Eour have loft since 1 wn.« there. They did not know they would lose a week's money. Mr. Grayndler: 1 wish to draw the 2ourfs attention to the fact that under the present award the employers hare no power to deduct the 3d. an hour. Mr. Sheat: The rata i 3 a bonus of 6d. for casual aud 9d. for permanentlabor. Mr. Bashford: Tho understanding when a man goes to a mill is that he will get paid at the rate of 2,- an hour and £1 per 1000 for bushel work, and that if he leaves before, the season ends 3d. per hour will be deducted, Mr. Grayndler: How much money did the men draw who left Judson's mill? —One man was 27/- in debt. He had been there 12 days. Another man had 3/7 ito draw. He was there a similar period, Wera any other men discharged from j ;hat mill?— Six left, but I. do imt know ! inder what condition?. ; His Honor; What did these men leave ! Jdt?—Trouble over the food. Yye could } lot get a cook. We WOEKED OXTI ' AFTERNOON ON A DETSK «»E I WATER. AND A PIECE OF BREAD I AND DRIPPING. Also the arduous ' nature of tho work had something to j do with it.

f His Honor: IF THEEB WAS NOT A PROPER COOK, 1 CONSIDER Tgffi MEN WERE JUSTIFIED IX LEAVING, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPELLED TO LOSE A WEEK'S WAGES. Charles Edward Baldwin: I am secretary of the Canterbury Agricultural and. Pastoraj' Workers' Union. I have cot pa'-a'cil any men for the threshing mill- rl-ii-s venr! The men asted yrixixt conditions they would aud whether the mill-owners were finding the food. If so. they would accept the work; if not, they would go to South Canterbury, whore the food wa.; found. During the last six weeks 1 iiave visited every threshing mill operating southed' 1 Culverdcn and north of the Wauuakarin, I aud I'rom SheHJeld to' Kirwee, with th « exception of 0110. al: tho request of the men working on them. On every mill, with tlie exception of four, I found nothing but general discontent in reI gard to the conditions of having t« find their own food, the bad whares and tlv> sleeping accommodation. I found two mill-owners who have been fined before 1 tho Court 011 two occasions, and who have merely said they could not lx> expc ( ted to pull things about for the sake ' of 10/- a- year, which was the. cost of tho I fine. General discontent' was expressed with the contract system, and at having to find their own food under conditions which were unfair to 'them. In the majority of cases they were afraid to complain, as it, would mean their being put on the road. Sir. Gmyudler: Have you visited Jodsoa's mill:—Yes; within the last ten days.'rr e conditions there were as bad as it would .be possible to find. I arrived just before meal time, and there j was no sign of a meal. There was a Maori boy sent to dig a hole alongside tji e 'whare, put two standards across it, put the frying-pan over the hole, and throw some chops m it. with the resuM that they were practically cremated. That, with bread and a billy ot ten, was all there was. Tho men had. about hall'-an-hmir tor the meal, and went out into the paddock again. The men came ' to mc, and -:aid they had told Judson they would have to get. a cook or ilif'v would leave, JUDSO-N SAID THAT WHEN THE PADDOCK THEY WERE ON WAS DONE THEY COULD GET OUT. FOR WHICH THE MEN THOUGHT THAT THEY MIGHT \S WELL LEAVE THEN. OXE MAN' HID WORKED THERE 10 OR 12 DAYS, AND HAD NO MONEY COMING TO HIM. Some of (ho whares were comfortable enough, but alongside of them is a lea 1 ' ft hat hangs down, aud that is 'the place where th e men nave to eat their food. They have to stand there in all weathers or sit on the bed and cat. Som o mills provide a table for tlie men, and I think all of them should. .Dealing with the general conditions ot the men working on the mills and the point of the second man on the dray forking up to th e mill, I do not see that any exception should be taken to him. He keeps . the work going ideadily, but this season, when life work is running fast, this mau is essential. 'The majority of the mill-owners I have eomo in contact with have told mc that they really think that an extra man should be carried, and some ot them are doing-it. . ' Mr. Sheaf: You say you found a gen-, era! discontent. Do you mean that themen joined your Union straight away to Four mills I did not get any returns from, but on Hall's mill every man is a financial member of the Union. You made a statement that SO per'/ cent, of the men are discontented?—Of j the mills I visited that is so. Roughly, there are about 350 men. THE UNION ARGUMENT The following statement was made by Mr. C. drayndler to tlie Arbitration Court at its Christchurch sittings m . support of the Union's demands for a rate of 1/9 for general threshing null workers, 2/3' for feeders, th e free provisions of food by the mill owners, and the abolition of "th e contract system, WAGES In the present award which came into operation in May, 1914, the rate per hour is fixed at 1/3 out of which the men had to provide their own food. I propose to show from facts that the increase in wages asked for, as well as the demand for the free provision cf food, ia not only necessary, but fair and practical, and that they may be awarded without injury to tho wheat industry. The present award in North Canterbury was made at the end of the 1913-11 season, May 1%. V)M, at a tine •when no threat of war had created abnormal conditions, and, when, therefore, tho presumption was that, little change would occur in tho conditions of the wheat market. If the Court will refer to the reports of the Board of Trade, it will sco that in'the three- years immediately before 'the war the price' of wheat ranged from 3/6 to 3/10 a'bushel, and for a great part of the time stood at the lower figure. If the average price is put down at 3/9 I am sure it would be something more than .the actual fact. When the Court awarded the 1/3 rate three months before the outbreak of hostilities it may be taken as holding the view thai a 3/9 rate for wheat enabled the growers to pay threshing millowner.? .without injustice such a rate as 1 enabled the latter to pay that rate of j wages profitably. j To got al; the total pre-war revenue j of th« wheat growers in Canterbury, it «s only necessary to calculate on the basis of Canterbury's production at the rate of 3/0 a bushel. For the fivo years immediately price to tlie war—that is from ISO 9-1- to 1913-14 inclusive—the to<al average yield per year for the whol e Dominion just; about equalled tho total production last year, 1917-IS, that is 0,807.536 bushels. This return is given on Page 36 of the Monthly Abstract for January, 1919. Canterbury's sharo of 7ie total production in 1917-1S is not given in the January, 1919, Abstract, but the Abstract for August, 1918, which gives an almost complete interim report .toto that of the wheat production ■then known to the Statistician, vi::. , I <■';,761,000 bushels, 5,254,000 grown in Canterbury. Jt would be quite fair, I i therefor", to say that when the totnl j ! production amounted to 6,807,000 bushels, | ■ Canterbury's share would com c to at. ! le:-.st .to-O.iJOLi bushels. Now at 3/9 a ) bushel, i"),-jSO,OOO bushel a would return ' x revenue to the growers of iC'9O,O&O, I from which, of course, they would have I to meet all charges, including that for j threshing tho Kfain. J Since 1914. conditions in raspect to tho price of wheat have been completely

changed. For the season 1917-18 —that is last year—a. maximum price for wheat was fixed by tho • Government at 5/10 a bushel. This price has been repeatedly represented by th*? growers as being too low to ensur« a profit and, as a consequence, by successive stages, the- Governmetn ha? increased the price to a. minimum of C/ 4 and a free market, lattoly substituting- for that f straiglitoiit Ijiii.* of 6 G a bnshfll. It follows from tlnq that : f our wheat production 19 equal this year to that of last year, and Canterbury produces the same proportion, of it, 5,280,000 bushels, its wheat revenue will lv *C1,71G,000, or <&726.000 more than in any year of-the three years immediately preceding th© war. The wheat growers 7 revenue has, therefore, increased by 74 per cent. It Laiinot be denied that' they are well able to pa y the threshing" mill owners a--rate which will make it possible for the to increase wages proportionately with the increase in the wheat revenue. The Union feels that the. mill owners themselves have already scon to this. In all the Christchurch papers an advertisement signed by Mr. G. Sheat and Mr. P. Lill, president and secretary of i.he North Canterbury Threshing Mill Owners' Association, and dated January ' 17, 1919, appeared announcing that wheat growers' were to be charged the undermentioned prices:— Wheat and barley in atook 5-ki a bushel Wheat and barley in stook 5d a bushel Oats in stook 4jd » bushel Oats in .stack ±l A a hushel Clover shelling 30,'- a u h-mr Tea threshing. .40/- an hour Grain .not running 103 butols an hour will be charged hour work. tow averaging the grain at 5d a j bushed it will bo seen that the millers' total charge for threshing 5,280,000 bushels aver the whole of Canterbury ' would be, .£IIO,OOO. From this, of course must come the null hands' wages. Now j would like to bs able to arg-ue on the basis ot the yield for .North Canterbury, because that is the district, we are particularly concerned with, but although the Canterbury yield is published in. the Abstract, I have not ge-en thai to Xoith Canterbury yield is given anywhere. To give «n indication oi ih<i effects of thes? demands it. will be necessary, therefore, lo balance again** the rarll owners'' revenue, as above, the total waii's cost over all the mills in North and Souih Canterbury. This may be done by taking as the basis for calculation the total number of mills in the whole province. Joined to the 191G South' Canterbury award are 66 mill owners rmd to tho 1914 .North, Canterbury award 132. Tho total numiier of Canterbury mill owners bound by awards is 198. If wo take the number of their mills at 210 we Will not be far out. jf the Union demands with respect to the manning of the mills is conceded each mill will have a staff of eleven men, which number will include the engine driver, for whom no toim is Vtoig made. To put these calculations o n iho right side, the engine driver may be. thrown in, and I]°iii-en be taken as the for our estimates. This will make a total of 2,310 men employed. As to Union wishes to be fair it considers the estimate of a 60 hour week for five weeks not to '<wu\- >>:m the average run of 0 Hireling 'mill. The total number of hours lo be paid for thus comes to 2.310 (tho number of men employed) multiplied by GO (the number of hours per week multiplied by 5 (the number of weeks in th c season). This will make a total of 693,000 hours. At 1/9 an hour this number of hours will cost the employers .£60,637/10/-. To complete the argument on this point it will be necessary to make some calculations in reference to the Union demand for the free provision of food b y tlie employers. In tho set of conditions (already, referred to) advertised by the threshing mill owners for application to this season the price they propose .to chargo for food is given at 25/- a week. This may be used to work on. To feed 2,310 men at this rate for iiv© weeks 'would cost .£14,437/10/-. Tho total cost to the employers of wages and the provision of food would therefore be: — £ 3. a. Wages 60,637 10 0 Food ",437 10 0 Total ... .£75,075 0 0 So that after meeting the Union demands Vff the manning of the mill,-the provision of food, and the increase cf n-agts, the position is:— JB c. d. Mill Owners' Income, ' 5,280,000 bushels at od. 110,000 0 0 Cost of wages and food under Union demand* 75,075 0 0 Cred't margin ... £34,925 0 0 The of course, contend that 1/9 an hour and food is ruinous, this ; margin notwithstanding. Their contention, however, is almost discounted by what they themselves advertise their willingness to pay. In the advertisement mentioned the employers announce the following rates;— "I' 3 an hour and a war bonus of ■ 9d an hour to men staying the season; ■ men leaving before the end of tho , j season Cd an Imv.r war bonus. ( 1 13'- per 1000 and a. war bonus of I :,:- per 1000 tor oats. j 16; - per 1000 and a war bonus of 5/--a 1000 for wheat and barley; men , leaving bet'oT© the end of the season , 1 ■'. less in both cases. j Men leaving the mill before th© end , j of the season will be charged not less • [ than 25/- a week for food. _ j i The rate of wages covers- shifting , j time." 1 j That is 2/- an hour, in effect, for thet ' men. What is the difference between ] ' our demand and that? 1/9 an hour ' and food at 25/'- a week of 60 hour;- is equal to 2/2 an hour. The additional 2d is ruinous, says the employer. Pus it another way:— £ B. d. ] • 693,000 hours at 1/9 plus ] food at 25/- weekly ... 75,07.1 0 0 ' 693,000 at 2/- hourly* 69,300 0 0 Difference ... .£5,775 0 0 ' i r-r about .-£2/10,-'- p«r man over Ihe whole i ieason. The amount is . hardly worth £ compromising about, particularly seeing, '' as will be stressed later, that the Wai- s mate district of South Canterbury last s year without; exception on every mill i paid the asked for in these claims, j and is doing the same "this freu&on. c

At tin's jKiint the position may h? <-urumarised:— Canterbury Wheat Growers' Ifeyenuo in pre-war years 5,280.000 bushel-! at :i9 a bushel .£990.000 Canterbury , Threshing Workers' pre-war wagos, | GP3.000 houT= at 1/3 --- .£43.312 | Proportion. ot" pre-war »-!i»is; Tr> pre-war -vrlaeat: revenue H% ( a P-O Canterbury "Wheat. Growers' lievenue this seasoason'.s production at G/G a bushel .fcI.TICOOO | Threshing Mill Workers' I J wages; under these demands; plus oast of i'ood ; at 25/- a week j^75.07.! I Proportion. of cost of j wages and food demanded to this season's rev■eutie 4 ° ( a P*-' Tt: will bo scon from <tlm that the ! Union is merely asking for the amend-j mont of the existing award to give I it tho same force under tho new conditions as it had under the old. Total revenue of millowners, 5,230,000 bushel? at 5d ! .£IIO,OOO Total cost of wages and food demanded J&io,Q7!i Balance ... ,£34,925 Amount owners have advertised their willingness to pay, 693,000 hourp at 2'- an hour ...* Difference between cost of Union's claims and employers' wage's «.. .£5.773 or £2[W- per man employed. In cas c the employers argue that at the present price for wheat the- wheat growers are unable to pay a thresh- ■ ing rate that will bo *?qual to th* j burden of the=» demands I wish to draw rh* (:or.n> uot'oo to following arga- \ ment. The wheat gi'ov/cr-, Lave repeat- j «-d.ly asserted that tho price iised for! wheat bytt o Government last year— | v maximum of s'lo a bushel—did not return a profit but the fact remains vhat wheat under the in- j cfiitive of this price, put down 63,000 i acres moro in wheat than they did in j, 1 h<, yew before, when tiTo market was •, "free" ax they call it. and no limit | was placed upon ill* pries , . The osuct | figures aro to bfi &xn in the Abstract. for January, 1910, pa go 3C>. They uve ay follows:— Tear. Acreage Sown. Yield. I 1916-17 217,743 5,0.51,227 | 1917-18 280,978 6,807,536 Increase in acreage, G3,000 (roughly) Increase- in yield, 1,750,000 bushels I think it may be convincingly argued in this Court; thnt wheat growers do not increase their wheat cultivation, by 63,000 acres except under the stimulus of a profitable return, and it may, therefore, i)e ?aid that th e additional cultivation is a. strong evidence that 5/10 was a satisfactory price. Now, although this price resulted in j a yield giving 1.750,000 bushels moro j than in the previous your, the total j production—6.Bo7,ooo 'bushels—fell short; of the Dominion's requirements, and this i shortage was straightway claimed by the ! growers as n proof that 5/10 was insuf-j ficient to induce the necessary wheat j cultivation—was. in fact, too low to on-j sure a proii tab] c return. They had a i dual purpose in this. They wished to I force a higher price from the Government, and they wished to take the wind out of tho Union's sails. In connection with this dispute, the Union has no quarrel with the wheat growers over i tboir anxiety to increase the price of wheat—the more they get th e stronger is our case for the demands we are making—but it contests 'their statement that the reason why wheat production last year failed to satisfy local needs was because the price was too low. The real reason was that tho season was a bad one, and the yield per acre much less than was expected. That the season was bad is proven by the following figures taken from the January, 1919, Abstract, page 36: — j Year Acres Yield per Total 1908-9 252,391 34.75 5,772,790 1909-10 311,000 25.00 8.6G1.W0 1910-11 322,107 25.73 8,290,271 1911-12 215,528 33.09 7,261,138 1912-13 imj.SGO 27.28 5,179,626 1913-14 166,774 31.37 5,231,700 1914-15 2-29,600 28.9J, 6,644,33G 1945-16 329,207 21.59 7,108,360 1916-17 217,743 23.19 5,051,227 1917-18 '• .280,978 24.23 6,807,536 1 Of these fcen years seven show a greaiter average return per acre than last year and only two show less. In 190S-9 the yield was more than ten bushels j more per acre than last year. Had last year's crop given the same yield as that of 1908-9 the total yield would hav e been j roughly 9,600,000 bushels or aboxat 2,000,000 bushels of a surplus over and above the Dominion's requirements. In this case there would have been no . shortage, with which to camouflage tho ■ fact that NOT the 5/10 but the ISAD ' SEASON was responsible for the deficiency in the production But notwith- ] standing the bad season the production Jasfc year was, as already shown, 1,750,000 ■ bushels more than in the previous year, j and this, to the Union, appears very conclusive, evidence that the growers re- r\ garded the 5/10 as a remunerative ■ figure. ' If tho Union admit , ?, for argument's j sake, that 5/10 was too low, the case for I the North CanteTbury mill owners is not I improved for this reason, that at that J price 'last year EVERY MILL in tne Waimate district of South Canterbury paid the wages the Union is asking in these claims, and also provided the food | free for the men. Now the conditions I in North, Canterbury and Waimat e are! not co dissimilar as to justify any I . diversity in the wages paid on the mills. The Unioa wants to know, therefore, why, if Waimate last year could pay 1/9 an Dour and find food free, when the price was 5/10, North Canterbury cannot do the same (this year when the j price is 6/6 a bushel or 8d a bushel more? Granting that the eeason this year will be. as bad ag last year (aa a J matter of fact it is a very good season this year) North Canterbury ■will I have. 8d a bushel more, and is only being , aslcrd to concede tthe same conditions m as applied without exception all over Waimate during the last threshing , season. In the circumstances the Union simply cannot ccc that its demands are « in the slightest degree unfair and Impractical, and, bluntly, -wh«n Waimate can pay these demands with wheat at

] 0/10, it cannot fi c o that, with wheat ;at G/C, any reason esist-j why North i Canterbury should get oft' with less. ; Just before leaving- this point th* Union again wishes to stress the iact i that the calculations made here yi€ ! based on the returns tor a BAD SEAi SON. Remember that for thin number jof bushels tho wheat growers' revenue in Canterbury at C,C a bushel i-: I .€1,710,000. and then remember that had I seasons are the exception and. NOT THF I RULE. It follows from thi-j that aI this season is a pood onp. Ih n iinannal 1 returns of the growers aud therefore oi j tho millers will be very much greater j than the figure, ns above, which ha--been used for t.hj> basis for our estitns " ate-;. Consequently th,* Union's figure? will lie hard to dispute. If we have erred at all il will be on tlie side 0! Ihe employers, and that gives further strength to ihe ease wo Inve put forward. (To be Continued)