FARM EMPLOYEES

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19104, 27 August 1936, Page 10

FARM EMPLOYEES

CONDITIONS PROPOSED CASH IN LIEU OF BOARD MONTH'S HOLIDAY A YE All PAY AND ALLOWANCE (Per Presß Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. The committal of the Agricultural Workers Bill was moved' in the House of Representatives to-day .by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong. Dealing with the definition of a dairy farm tinder the bill, the Minister said that it had 'been found they could hardly classify a farm on the butter fat it produced, and it was considered that it would ue fairer if the definition were based on the number of cows milked. It was thought that 10 cows would be a fair start for such a purpose. This number of cows, however, would not necessarily class a farm as a dairy farm. For instance, if there were 10 cows on a sheep farm, it would not class that farm as a dairy farm. The 10-Cow limit would only be applicable where milk was being sold from the farm. Another clause, said the Minister, would prevent the employment of any child on farms who was under the ago of 15 years. This provision would not apply to the families of farmers, and the Minister announced that lie intended to move when the House went into committee, that this clause should also not apply to boys under 15 who were already in employment on farms. With regard to wages and holidays, Mr. Armstrong stressed the fact that where board was not provided for farm workers, an extra 17s 6d a week must be provided with the minimum wage. UNDER-RATE WORKERS Provision was also mnde in the bill for under-rate workers. The Government recognised that some workers on farms were old-age pensioners. Some were aged, but were not eligible for pensions, while others were younger people who were physically not able to do a decent day's work. It was to such as these under-rate workers that the clause would apply, and would provide for the payment of less than thej|minimum wages of other workers. With reference to holidays, Mr. Armstrong said that personally he would have liked to have been aide to grant ■a day and a-half weekly, or even a Aiihour week to farm workers, but he was afraid this would be impracticable, and it was decided that such workers should be granted four weeks' holiday per year on full pay,, plus 8s 9d per week, which was half the amount of the estimated boarding allowance. It was also decided that where a worker was granted half a day holiday, a week, he should' be only granted two week's annual holiday. Another new clause, which had been added to the bill was that which enabled the inclusion, under the provisions of the bill, of farmers other than dairy farmers. The Labour Rills CommTttee, said the Minister, had been approached by fanners from all over the Dominion, asking for inclusion under the bill. For instance, the New Zealand orchardists had approached him for inclusion as orchardists. COMPETITION FOR LABOUR They considered that if they came under it it would obviate to a certain extent the possibility of their being brought before the Arbitration Court in an industrial dispute, and the provisions of the bill were quite acceptable to them. Personally, said Mr. Armstrong, ho would favour a mutual agreement by farmers and workers throughout the Dominion regarding conditions and wages without recourse to the Arbitration Court,

Mi\ Armstrong said in conclusion that if anomalies were found in the bill, they could be reviewed next year. The Rt. Hon.G. W. Forbes, Leader of the Opposition, said he considered there was less necessity for the bill fixing wages on farms at present than there had been for some time past. The prices for farm produce were increasing all round, and the wages of farm workers were affected by wages of workers outside. In boom times the farmer had to 'compete in the labour market with outside employers, and wages on farms increased accordingly. The speaker always believed in paying good wages to farm workers, and a good man never had any difficulty in getting work and the best wages offering. .Mr. H. M. Christie (Lab., Waipawa) expressed the opinion that the bill would assist in securing the necessary labour for farms. NEGOTIATION PREFERRED Mr. W. J. Folson (Nat., Stratford) said he did not. agree that most of the troubles of the farmer were due to inflated land values, and he thought it would be a mistake to deflate land values to too serious a level, as it would hinder, if not stop, development. The bill was i merely an experiment for one year to discover whether it was possible to continue, and he thought it would be possible. He believed the farmers' organisations thought the questions should be settled by negotiation, and the only alternative was the Arbitration Court. The farmers had always felt that the wages in tneir industry were too low, but they were handicapped by the market prices. He said .that men who were drawing good wages were leaving farms to take contract work on public works and they could not be blamed for so doing. Mr. Poison said that 44 per cent of the dairy farmers would not be affected by the bill, as they had fewer than 10 cows; 41.5 per cent had between 10 and £0 cows; and only 5.7, per cent more than 75 cows. The bill piit farmer in a worse position than at present, but did not exclude the farmer from. the Arbitration Court.

He thought it made it more unlikely that recourse would he had to that court. Farming organisations and individual farmers with whom lie had discussed the rrteasure agreed that the arrangement made under the bill was an excellent one.

The debate was adjourned and the House rose.