The Daily News SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1930. MAKING TROUBLE.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 December 1930, Page 6

The Daily News SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1930. MAKING TROUBLE.

It lias not taken one of the paid of Labour , long to attack tlie Unemployment Board’s No. 2' seheirie, particularly the portion of it relating to the subsidising of wages paid fbr harvesting. It will probably be apparent to all unbiased readers of the stateirient made at Wellington on Thursday by Mr. A. Cook, secretary o£ the New Zealand Workers’ Union and presiderit of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, that he shaped his remarks on a somewhat similar frame to that adopted in bygone years by “Old Bailey” advocates when attempting to prove that black was white. At the same time he was sdfficiently astiite to select a theine that embraced in part the unpopularity of the protection given to the growers of wheat in the Dominion. Yet, like others of his class, he was not content, mebeiy to decry the wickedness of subsidising labour for harvesting, but he went on to say: “Much has been written recently about the difficulties confronting fariners who are engaged in the pursuits of sheep raising and dairy farming, etc., but the fact is always lost sight of that these people ,can at least provide themselves and their dependents with ample foodstuffs and good clothing and give their children a good education.” In the first place it would be well to' follow Mr. Cook’s peculiar method of argument as it affects the harvesters. He rias to admit there are no arbitration awards operating for harvesting, ploughing, drainage work, scrub cutting, etc., but he claims that inasmuch as there are such awards for threshing mill work—-an industry closely related to harvesting—to bring the occupation of harvesting into the Unemployment Board’s scheme at all is criminal in the extreme; “and will certainly tend to reduce the wages of harvesters by at least 50 per cent., because the minimum wage of threshing mill workers is Is 10|d per hour, with food.” The two classes of work are very different, as everyone who has tried both can vouch for. Admittedly the threshing labourers earn their pay. Had Mr. Cook been content with a strong protest against the cereal growers receiving assistance from the Unemployment Board, on the ground that the price obtained for their produce is sufficiently good to yipld a profit after paying wages, his action would probably have been approved. Instead he announced that “organised labour throughout New Zealand will be forced to fight this measure to bitter end in order to protect to. some little extent the unfortunate workers who will be placed at the. mercy of employers making application for subsidised labour.”

Such talk, is merely an ex-parte

sensational appeal to /class prejudices. At the same time it clearly, demonstrates the weakness of the Act in not providing severe penalties upon those who attempt to stir up trouble on the part of the workers by any means whatever. The purpose of the Act under which the Unemployment Board was. constituted was essentially to- assist the workers to carry on as well as circumstances will permit the duty of earning their living and supporting their dependents. Surely it is the duty of all who are really desirous of maintaining the self-respect of the workers to encourage them to be content with doing their best to tide over the present depression in the right spirit, rather than to exist on charity. If, as Mr. Cook claims, it is “criminal in the extreme” to bring the occupation of harvesting into the scheme of subsidised wages, what can be said of a trh.de union that instructs- the whole of its membership to refuse to accept work in the harvest field at a lesser rate than that paid to threshing-mill lt is, of course, typical of Mr. Cook’s methods, and apparently indicative of his.ignorance, that “harvesting” should be only applied to the gathering of cereal crops. In the dairying districts the important work of harvesting is haymaking, and this season it is obviously more than ever desirable that the dairy farmers should ha.ve adequate help to ensure the successful saving of their hay crops. It should be equally obvious, and .is td all but Mr. Cook and l|is Labour friends, that the average dairy farmer has no means with which to pay “award rates” for harvesting and if he Cannot get workers at the price he can afford to pay his harvest must be curtailed. The consequence ; would be inability to increase—perhaps even to maintain —production and to-provide employment for those who need it. But that probably is looking too far ahead for Mr. Cook. “If the workers of 'New Zealand don’t wish ,to be brought to the verge of penury and want,’ ’ he declares, “they will refuse in a body to accept work under the board’s scheme unless guaranteed a wage equal to that paid the Arbitration Court awards\ This is-worse than nonsense; it is, indeed, criminal folly, arid the law of the country could well be strengthened to prevent such utterances. It is for the sake of those who 'are actually suffering penury and want—not only men who are unemployed but their wives and children also-rthat emergency efforts are being made to provide work. There is no inexhaustible fund for that purpose. If “award Wages” had to be paid all through there would be so much less work, so many more unemployed, and in the Jong run penury and want for the whole community. . ■