WORKERS ON FARMS

Taranaki Daily News, 5 September 1935, Page 13

WORKERS ON FARMS

DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS. CONTRAST WITH TOWNSPEOPLE.

(By

Maire M. Arthur).

There is a great difference between agricultural conditions and those governing “industry.” Agricultural work is much less easy to regulate than industrial. The rules and regulations governing hundreds of workers in appointed industrial tasks cannot be applied to the farmers. The difficulties lie in the scattered nature of agricultural operations, the varying seasons and the care and attention to animals. The work, hard and laborious though it is, is not so intensive as factory work and contains much more variety. For these various reasons, together with political and economic causes, there has been a tendency in the past to omit agriculture from the scope of social legislation. In many countries where the factories are foremost, agriculture is still in the mediaeval stage. The farm worker is notoriously one of the worst paid of all workers. The International Labour Office was founded to bring about “social justice,” no restrictions being placed on this term. The driving power for its foundation came, however, from industry, and in the minds of its founders industrial problems preceded all others. At its first conference in 1919 it dealt exclusively with industrial problems and in 1920 with the problems of seamen. At Washington in 1919, however, the conference decided by 42 votes to 14 to take up the question of agricultural labour. In 1921 the conference had on its agenda the adaption to agriculture of some of the conventions concluded in 1919. The French government formally objected to the treatment by the 1.L.0. of agricultural problems on the ground that “the diversity of economic conditions, surroundings, climate, cultural needs and populations prevent the adoption of anything more than vague and general formulas which can furnish no basis, for a serious and effective regulation.”

The overwhelming majority of the conference, however, pronounced against this contention. France then raised a legal question, “Could agriculture be considered as an industry?” and thus come within the terms of reference of the 1.L.0.? On this point the majority again won. The French Government took this question first to the League Council and then to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which decided that the 1.L.0. was competent to deal with agricultural questions and it has done so, without further question, since that time.

The special services of the 1.L.0. connected with agriculture consist of an agricultural section in the office and a mixed Advisory Agricultural Committee which consists of representatives of the governing body of the 1.L.0. (Government, employers and workers) and of the permanent committee of the International Institu + e at Rome. Thus the 1.L.0. can always be informed of the needs and problems of agriculture from all angles. The 1.L.0. collaborates regularly with the Rome Institute in various research questions affecting agriculture. The initial programme drawn up by the agricultural section was very ambitious, including, amongst other things, the following items; Rights of association of agricultural workers, collective agreements, all branches of social insurance including unemployment insurance, wages and hours of work, regulation of the work of women and children, housing, prevention of sickness, general and technical education, co-operation, credit.* It has been found by experience that it is more practical to separate off the problems of agriculture from those of industry, rather than a single convention covering both occupations. Otherwise industrial workers are apt to suffer from the unwillingness of many Governments to undertake far r .aching engagements with regard to their agriculture. In his report to the 1935 conference, Mr. Butler, th? director of the 1.L.0., indicated that the organisation would probably be devoting more attention in the future to agriculture. Among the problems which he suggested as worthy of consideration were those of “rural leisure” as a check to the flight from the land: the improvement of social insurance; and the great question of the general place of agriculture in the economic system. One of the root causes of the present economic lack of balance is, as he pointed out, “the wide discrepancy between the prices of the goods and services which the farmer needs and the prices which his produce commands.” In making this suggestion Mr. Butler indicated that the 1.L.0., in its consideration of agriculture, was gradually moving out beyond the strictly social task of the protection of the agricultural labourer into the wider field of the economics of agriculture as a whole.