AMONG THE UNIONS

Maoriland Worker, Volume 13, Issue 30, 25 July 1923, Page 2

AMONG THE UNIONS

prices on the average of lOld. per-lb. over all wool. In this case, 8091bs. weight of wool has a vaifejie of £35/----11/25, from Avhich Aye will deduct present shearers' award rates.of £1/4/per hundred and also £ 1/4/- per hundred, for shedhands, which is a much greater allowance than is actually received by shedhands. If avo deduct £2/8/- from £35/11/25, the balance left to the grower is £35/3/2?-- —an increase of £10/2/7 above his 1908 income for every 100 sheep he shears. The prices ruling for lambs, mutton, and beef further increases his income considerably above his 1908 income. . BOSSES* PROFIT. Now, if the Avhole of the Union's claims are granted—viz., 30/- perl hundred—that will mean 6/- per him- j dred above present award rates for | shearers, and 6/-' per hundred for J shedhands —12/- in all. This Avill re-j duce the grower's present profit over ; shearing costs from '£33/3/25 to ! £32/11/25; it will give a measure of j satisfaction to shearers and shed-| hands, and will lea\ r e the woolgrow- j ers £9/10/7 per hundred better off I than what- they Avere under 1908 avool ; prices. ' I take the year 1908 for the reason i that that was the first year that the I award of this Court operated in the! Wellington industrial district, and the"" Union contends the Court has only two questions to consider. No. 1 is the wages fixed in the first instance by ths Court, viz., £1/2/6 per hundred, and Second'is the matter of the increased cost of living which has taken \ place since that award was granted.

Let mc say that if the Court did this, we Avould then only receive bare equity and justice. SHKOHAXDS* KATES OF PAY. This argument applies with a greater force to shedhands than it does to shearers, for this reason: the memorandum attached to the 1921 Shearers and Shedhands' Award states that the shearer had benefited far more than Avorkers employed in other industires. This we do not ad-

mit. but the point I wish to make here is in regard to shedhands and cooks, it cannot be said that these Avorkers benefited to the extent of £3/7/6 per week. The highest award rates were

— Cooks. £4 per week; pressers, £3/10/- per Aveek; for shedhands, £3/5/- per week. In the first case, the Court must have assumed the cooks' pre-war Avages to be 12/6 per week, pressers 2/6 per Aveek, aud other- shedhands paying 2/6 per week for the right to work. If the shedhands were not included in the Court's contention re the £3/7/6 benefit, then on what grounds did the. Court impose the same reduction, on shedhands as it imposed on shearers?

While, on the question of shedhands. I will deal Avith the grounds upon which rests the right of these workers to the claim's nut forward on their behalf.

We will first take the cook. His hours of Avork are 17 for six days of the week and at the very least .10 hours on Sundays—a total of 112 for the week, and for that number of hours he receives the Aveekly Avage of £3/10/-, which works out at exactly 7id. per hour. Now, we will take the hotel and restaurant cooks. Their hours of work are 48 hours, the Avage £5 per week, which works out at 2/1 per hour, or 1/5?- per hour more than the squatter's cook receives. If anything, the squatter's cook has to do a greater, amount of cooking than the hotel and restaurant cooks. He has to bake all the bread, chop his own firewood, carry his OAvn Avatef, whereas these facilities are provided in hotels and restaurants, as well as bakers' bread being supplied. ACTUAL WAOLS EARXKI) BY HOURLY WOTiKLTJS. Now let us take the Avage earned last season in Hawke's Bay in the biggest runs under the hourly system. The shedhands employed by Ike Robin, shearing contractor, Avorked in the following sheds: Rukumoana, Chesterhope, Temata, Mohanga, Ngaturi, and Mangahane, six sheds in all. Fourteen Aveeks were occupied, and their earnigs were £32. From this had to be deducted travelling expenses of £5. This left a net income of £27 for 14 weeks' hard toil —an average of £1/18/1* per Aveek.

Wl Nuku's gang had three big sheds -—Okawa, Matlpiro and Te Mahanga. Team worked 14 weeks, earnings ,£l-8/l/-;' travelling expenses, £2; leaving £16/1/- fe>r' 14 weeks' work; an average of £1/2/11 per Aveek.

Arthur manner's gang did four sheds —Rauknwa, Waiterenui, Washpool and Crlencoe. Team occupied 11 weeks; total earaing's. £23/8/6, less

>. £4/5/- travelling expenses; leaving i. £19/3/6 for 11 Aveeks' labour, or an - average of £ 1/14/105 per week. ?! PIIECMASINO POWER. Now for a comparison of the pur--1.1 chasing power of 20/- at present day - and the purchasing power of 20/- in t 1914, which must be taken into eon--3 sidoration when wages are being as- - j sessed. One of the principles of this - j Court is to give a wage that will have • | the same purchasing poAver as the , wage paid in 1914 had. This the - Court contends, is real Avages.' Ac- . cording to a pronouncement made by , I your --(Honour last April, £1/11/- is j i required to purchase the same j ; j amount as what £1 would purchase! •I in 1914. ! •| Now we Avill take'the shedhands j 1 1 whose a Average weekly earnings were ! •j £1/18/15. This amount equalises the) • J purchasing power of about £1/4/- in | i 1914; and in the case of the second! I-gang the £1/2/11 they earned Avould": | have the purchasing poAver that 14/7 j I had in 1914. The third gang's aver- j ! age earnings of £1/14/10 has the; ! same purchasing power as £1/2/3 j ; had in 1914. If these are not strong j ■' reasons for the leA-elling-up of shed- I < ■ ' i hands' wages to. say, 1914 value, then ; I I am at a loss for argument to con- i | vince the Court. j COMPARISOX BKTWEKX SHEAR-j INO AMI SHKDHANDS' COSTS, j Now, I will show that the rate of j £1/4/- per hundred is considerably! above the actual . per hundred rate j paid to shedhands. The first run j quoted is "14 weeks; therefore, on the j Court's own basis of 450 sheep per' week for shearers, 6.300 sheep would j die shorn by the shearers, giving a i gross earning of £75/12/-. The; shedhand's earnings were £32. This 1 is less than half the shearing costs; j allowed to shedhands in the calcula- ; : tions above. As a matter of fact, the , cost for shedhands in this case (Ike j Robins) is 10/15 per hundred. This"! makes the shearing costs for both! shearers and shedhands £1/14/13; per hundred —not £2/8/ as I have; argued on previously. In the second case, where the shed- ; hand's total earnings were £18/3 - f \f.or 14 weeks, shearing costs are even ( much lower. The shearer on the; Court's alloAvance would again earn : , £ 75/12/ —a difference of £57/11/-, i 5

j less Avages for the shed hands. This 'will make shearers' costs £1/4/- per hundred and shedhands' costs 5/S'i per hundred —a total shearing cost of £1/9/83 per hundred. In this case my shearing costs are lower by IS/31 j per hundred. Avhich sum goes into the pocket of the sheepowners, his balance, after paying shearers and shedhands' Avages being £34/1/ Sis for every 100 sheep he has shorn—a sum not to be sneezed at. IXCO'JIK IX EXCESS Of ShKARIXO COSTS. ■ Now, for each penny per lb. extra which the grower receiA r es over i0?ul. per lb. he pocke,ts a further £3.''7/5 per .100; therefore, Avhen wool prices reach 21d. he has an Income—-after paying shearers' and shedhands' wages—of £ 69/12/7 a from each 100 sheep he has shorn; and Avhen the price of wool is 29d. per lb., the grower's income—after paying and shedhands' Avages —is £90/12."Hi for every 100 sheep the woolkin? shears. One shepowner (G. A. Sutherland, of Mcßae's Flat), vide April 10th issue of "Meat and Wool." pago 23, last paragraph, first column, obtained 2/6 per lb. for his woo. Ho would receive OA-er £100 from every hundred sheep he had shorn, and r.s he had 3,314 sheep, his income would be OA'er £3,300. No 50-50 here (80-20), Sutherland had the lion's share. A further comparison: Tt is conceded that our loAvest priced wool has increased its 1914 A r alue by 50 per cent. ■Now, according to "Prices," Page 150. this avool Avas 10id. per lb. in 1914; this Avould bring £34/6/3" to the sheepowner for every 100 sheep he shore in 1914. If Aye add 50 per cent, to this sum, he Avill receive £51/3/2 for every 100 sheep he shears. If Aye give the shearers 50 per cent, above 1914 rate, he Avill receiA'e 10/- from the £17/2/3 which the 50 per cent, /represents to the grower for ISI4 wool prices, and a further 10/- per 10.0 to meet the claims of shedhands— £1 in all. This Avill leave the grower £16/3/2 a hundred better off than he was in 1914. This, of couyse, is on our lowest grade wool, and ih'e high prices ruling for merino avool justifies 4:he claim for an extra rate of 5/- /per 100 Avhen shearing merinos, WEEKLY WAGE EARNERS' I.tfOOME. j Now in order to get an estimate j where a." weekly wage is paid to shod!

hands, we will consider all shedhands on the-highest, minimum award ratenamely, that paid to wool pressers, [which in the, last award is £3 per | week on a 14. weeks' run, provided he

was. paid for breaks "between each shed (which he isn't!); his wages would be £42; the shearer Avould again earn £75/12/, or £33/12/- ---' more than the shed hands. This makes the shearing costs for shearers £1/4/- p"er hundred, and the shedhands' shearing costs at 13/4 per hundred, making a total of £1/17/4, and 10/8 less than the first figures for the purpose of. comparison allowed for shearing costs, and as the highest wage for shed hands, is '£3/10/- in the case of or*s man — the cook; - £3 in the case of two men at the most, pressors; then £2/15/- for a greater percentage, and £2.for a larger percentage than in the first two cases. The shearing costs covering the wages of shearers and shedhands conic! not be as high at the present" time as £1/17/4. At this point I wish to draw the attention of the Court to the scandalous wage earned, under the hourly system. I have established good grounds for the 1 abolition of the hourly system and the miserable wage, it provides. Let mc finalise'my arguments for increased wages by referring to the record of wool sales and establishing from unimpeachable figures the capacity of the employers to pay the rates we claim. TiLCORO.OF WOOL SALES (WKLLIXUTOX). Figures extracted from "Meat and iVool," New Zealand commercial jourial. The proportion of classes' of vool ■in the total New Zealand avoo! dip is asunder:— Per yent. Merino. 00/6-1 ' 2.90 • Halfbred, 50/56/58 9.25 Fine Xbr.ed, 46/48/50.. 19.70 Med. Xhred, 40/44/46.. 62.11 Coarse Xbiod, 36/40 .... 5.94 100.00 I propose to prove the steady in-, rease in prices at the wool sales ince December, 1912, by giving the srures for medium crossbred, Avhieli onstitutes by far the great part *of he New Zealand wool clip, merely reiiarlving here that all classes of avooT I how a similar increase. I

Vied. Sup. AA-ge. Inferior. d. d. d. d. d. ' d. Dec :iU—l3 : i 9 —nh 7 — 8* Jan. * 13?>—loi S2—loi Feb. 12 —14 93—12Z- 7i— 9 March 1.2 —- 14i 10 —12 : i 7i — Oi April No sale in Wellington May 12 —1-ii 10 —13i 8 — 9i I may draw the Court's attention to this fact, that of the three grades of medium coarse- crossbred, super grade comprises the greater part of the clip. These prices show a decidedly np.ward tendency, and the average clip sold must have represented a large increase in ' the sheepowner;-.' income. CO'ttMKKCIAL ViKWrOiXT. How the commercial elements view these price increases may be seen from the following editorial in April number of "Meat and Wool," page 3: -COMBINED WOOL IS.NOW STEADILY" RECOVERING TOWARDS ITS NORMAL VALUE OF 50 PER CENT. ABOVE 1914 PRICES. AND SHOULD EVENTUALLY GO HIGHER OWING 1.0 THE DEPLETION OF FLOCKS ALL. OVER THE WORLD." The prediction in the foregoing quotation that prices would move to higher levels seems to have been fulfilled, .judging from the following editorial remarks in "Meat and Wool." "May 10. 192:3. p. 1: "WOOL VALUES CONTINUE TO IMPROVE, DESPITE THE FEARS TO THE CONTRARY THAT WERE RECENTLY EXPRESSED BY MANY AUTHORITIES. MERINO WOOL HAS APPARENTLY REACHED HIGHWATER MARK." (It had reached 30d. per lb. as a matter of fact.—C.G.), "BUT CROSSBREDS OF ALL DESCRIPTIONS APPEAR TO BE ON THE EVE OF A FURTHER STEADY ADVANCE." Let mc repeat that crossbreds provide the greatest part of .our' New Zealand avool production.

t 1 would here remind the Court that !in its memorandum to the 1921 award j/it .in. several places justified its refusal to apply stabilised proposals to the shearing, owing to the decline iri prices, and subsequent money stringency. In other words, the de-

clined prices were largely made $h3 of the rates awarded. In the memorandum of the 1922 I (award the Court again considered the unsatisfactory prices for wool as an. indication of what the rates of wages should he. ' Consequently, if it can reasonably be stated that wages must fall because prices decline, wages must Lie' raised now that prices have gone up. If' this argument, is to prevail, the Court can have no ground.for refusing the whole of the Union's demand* in respect of wages, seeing that "Meat and Wool" declares that avoo! prices are noAV back to the normal post-war. level! That is, at a higher level than was the case Avheu the sheepown-era-themselves agreed to pay 30/- per hundred for shearing sheep, toother with a proportionate increase foi shedhands.