WHY IS SANDER AND SONS' EUCALYPTI EXTRACT

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9320, 21 August 1908, Page 2

WHY IS SANDER AND SONS' EUCALYPTI EXTRACT

Superior to any other Eucalyptus product? Because it is the result of full experience, and of a special and careful product of manufacture. It is always safe, reliable and effective, and the dangers of the irresponsible preparations that are now palmed off as "Extracts" are avoided. A death was recently reoorted from the internal use of on© of these concoctions, and in an action at law a sworn witness testified that he suffered the most cruel irritation from the application of another, which was sold as V just as good as SANDERS'S EXTRACT." Therefore, beware of such deception. Remember, a drop that cures is better than a tablespoonful that Rills, and insist upon the preparation which was proved by experts at the Supreme Court of Victoria, by numerous authorities, by time and experience, to be a preparation of genuine merit, viz. : — THE GENUINE SANDER AND SONS' PURF VOLATILE EUCALYPTI EXTRACT.

nine months in. the same year - there were thirty-three days on which the weather was so wet that the teams | could not go out at all. The same wit- j ness said that in three months in 1906 there were fifty-two days on which the ground was so wet that the teams could not work it. % Other witnesses gave- similar experiences, and from all this evidence it is clear that any attempt, to impose on ploughing operations the restrictions as to hours asked for by the Union would hamper and greatly increase the cost of those operations; and the samo observation holds good with regard to other farming operations. The difficulty of fixing definite hours for work is increased in cases where part of the work on a farm consists in milking cows. In these cases it is impracticable to have the work done witnin any continuous period of nine hours, for the reason, that cows ought to be milked every twelve hours. The diffi-, culty of regulation on this subject is recognised in the report of the Conciliation Board, which recommends that the hours and wages of workers engaged in milking or attending to cows shall be fixed by mutual agreement. To get over the difficulty a suggestion was made by the Union that a worker engaged in milking cows should work for four or . five hours in tie morning and again for four or five hours at night. Some of the witnesses thought that it might be practicable to work in this way, but it did not appear that any fanner had ever tried the system as an experiment. It would be out of the question for the Court to force on dairy-farmers a method of working which had not been tried anywhere even, as an experiment. According to the " Official Year Book " there were 54,000 cows and heifers kept in the Canterbury Provincial District for dairying purposes in 1906-07. One witness said • that most of the farmers milk* only six or eight cows, and, if this is so, it follows that a large proportion of all the farmers in the industrial district must be engaged in dairying. Any award, therefore, which excluded from its opera-' tion, an recommended by the Board, all workers engaged in milking or attending to cows would leave only 'a very small proportion of the total workers to be affected by the award. , The difficulty of fixing nours in the case of workers engaged in dairying becomes a practical impossibility in the case of workers employed in looking after sheep. This impossibility was admitted by the Union's witnesses, and yet the Court is asked to fix the daily hours of general farm labourers, many of whom must liave to work among sheep at different periods of the year. IMPOSSIBLE TO FIX DAILY WORK OF GENERAL FARM HAND. It appears to us, therefore, to be qijite impracticable to fix any definite hours for the daily work of a general farm hand without altering materially the system under whicli farming ie carried, on at the present time. We leave now the question of hours, and proceed to deal with the question of fixing a minimum wage for general farm, hands. We have referred, already to Mr Thorn's enumeration of the different kinds of workers who are included in the class of general farm hands. It was not suggested that the Court should attempt to fix a minimum wage for each of the four classes mentioned by Mr Thorn, and it k difficult to see how it is possible to fix one minimum wage for different classes of workers whose work, in many respects, is so different. In the Board's repo^ it is recommended that the wages of ploughmen and general farm hands should be fixed at 24s per week, with additions in the case of ploughmen working more than fonar horses, or engaged in swamp ploughing. On this point the report expresses the view of the chairman only, because the workers' representatives think the minimum should be 27s 6d per week. In his address before the Court Mr Thorn gave the result of a very careful examination of the evidence as to the wages paid in the cases as to which information had been obtained during the hearing before the Board. This analysis showed that in seventy-six cases the wages ranged from 20s *up to 30s per week. In fifteen cases 20s per week was paid, in twenty cases 22s 6d per week, and iv twenty-eight cases 25s per week was paid. Mr Thorn on this evidence asked the Court to fix the minimum at 25s or 27s 6d per week. We are not satisfied that it is practicable to fix Avhat would be a fair minimum wag© for a general farm hand. If the minimum were fixed 'low, at, for example, 20s per week, the result might be to bring down the wages of those who are receiving higher wages, and this is certainly not a desirable result. If, on the other hand, the minimum were fixed at 2os or 27s 6d per week, the result would be "to throw a considerable burden on the farming industry and increase by many thousands of pounds the cost of farming, if it is to be carried on in the future as it has been carried on in tie past. The effect of any such increase in. wages would be to discourage the employment of labour and to induce farmers to avoid grain-growing and other operations that involve the employment of labour. Mr Thorn contended that the work of a general farm hand ought to be taken as worth, say, 27s 6d per week, and that that sum ought to be^fixed as the minimum wage to be paid to every competent farm labourer. But there il x f™ m e m tlie evidence to establish that the services of the farm labourer to whom, say, 20s is paid, are worth as much as the services of the worker to whom 30s is paid. The services rendered in each case may be so different in worth that the wage in each case may be perfectly fair when measured by exactly the same standard. The fact that one farm labourer is paid 30s per week does not prove that another farm labourer who receives only 20s per week is underpaid, and there is nothing in the evidence to justify the £ IJ L fixm S a minimum wage at 25s or Jts 6d m preference to 20s or 22s bd per week. A serious objection to fixing a minimum wage for the general farm hand arises from the fact that there are a large number of workers who find work on farms, but who are not worth the wage paid to the ordinary competent farm hand. Such workers would be thrown out of employment, or would have to obtain permits to work at less than the minimum wage. The report of the Board contains provision for an agreement being made provisionally in these cases between the employer and the worker, and for. the review of the agreement by the chairman of the Conciliation Board. It was estimated that from 3000 to 4000 cases would have to be dealt with under this provision, and it seems quite impracticable to have such a largo number -of cases, arising in different parts of the industrial district, dealt with by * the chairman of the Conciliation Board. ■" During the hearing of the case before the Court it was suggested that the parties might be left to make an. agreement on the subject, with a provision for giving notice to the Inspector of Awards, and giving the Union a right to have any agreements to which it objected reviewed before' the nearest Stipendiary Magistrate. This scheme would have avoided some of the difficulties . presented by the other method, and it

might be possible to device a workabld^B scheme on the subject. But it is oer«^fl tainly an objection to fixing a mini^H mum wage that, if any reasonable stisd^H is fixed, it would mean that some thou^H sands of workers wouJd have to be;al-^| lowed to work at less than such mini^H mum, or be thrown out of employment,™ It has not been proved that these inen'H are being sweated. Tliey are provide&H with food and shelter, and if the fte-H cuniary wage is small it may be thoH case that they are not worth more to^| the farmer, and they might have diffi-H culty in earning a living at. any other! H CANNOT FIX WAGES FOR GENE«H RAL FA^tM HANDS. ■ The conclusion we have come to'onH the whole matter is that it is not prac-M ticable to make an award fixing theH hours of work and wages for general ■ farm hands without altering seriously H the conditions under which farming is H now carried on. If a- strong case had H been made out for interference theH Court might have felt compelled toH make an award on the subject and to H attempt to regulate the hours of work H and wages of general farm hands. Such H a case, however, has not been madeH out, and the Court is thus relieved ■ from the necessity of making the peril- H ous attempt to regulate by award the H whole farming industry of the do-H minion. - ■ DAY LABOURERS. ■ The consideration! of the. case of the! day labourer was postponed', And w«H now proceed to deal witb>that subject. H The evidence shows that a large numbe"H of farmers pay their day labourers 7s ■ per day and upwards, while others bnlyß pay 6« per day, and some as low as 5s H per day. Wye think that anything leesH than 7s per day is not a living wageM where the worker has to maintain al wife and children, and that, so far asH the day labourer is concerned, a caseH has been made out for the interference ■ of the Court. In ordinary circumstan-H cos the Court would make aa awai-dW dealing with this case. The day labour- H ers form, howover, only a small faction H of the workers employed by fai'mers. ■ and we are not justified in bringing H 7000 or 8000. farmers under the opera- H tion of an aw-ard for the sake of Bene- H fit ing a small number of day labourers ■ who? are paid less than 7s per day. AsH will be seen hereafter,' a reoommnda-H tion is made on this subject, and! farm- H ers , will, no doubt, see the wisdom of H giving effect to this recommendation. ■ So far as fixing hours of work and. H wages are concerned, there would have H been no difficulty in making an award H with regard to workers who are employ- H ed specially to do harvest wo^isk ; but H there seemed to bo no necessity'for the ■ interference of the Court in the matter. ■ The evidence shows that during harvest H the hours of work range from ten to H twelve per day, and that general har- H rest hands employed by tne hour aro H paid, as a rule, Is per hour and. found, ■ while stackers are paid from Is 3d to Is H 6d per hour and found ; and that when ■ workers are engaged by the week for ■ thf> work, the wage most generally paid ■ is 50s per week and found. H General farm hands are also employ- ■ ed to do harvesting work, and are paid H a bonus in addition to their, ordinary ■ weekly wage. This bonus does not H seem to be fixed on any settled prin- H ciple, and the Court has made a recom- H mendation on this subject, to which H farmers doubtless will give due P<»l-''H 6ideration. • .H SHEPHERDS* MUSTERERS AND ■ PACKERS. ■ We propose .to deal now with the 6ub- H ject of shepherds, muster^rs and pack- ■ ers. The Court made air award this ■ year in the Otago and Southland dis- ■ trict dealing with musterers, and we ■ have not been convinced that there is ■ any reason why a similar award should H not be made with regard to musterers ■ and packers in the Canterbury district. ■ We propose, therefore, to make an ■ award between the Union and theH Sheep-owners' Union fixing the mini-'B mum wages of musterers at the rate fix- ■ ed by the Otago and Southland award, ■ and fixing those of packers employed in ■ connection with mustering at 30s" per ■ ■week. • • - H The award will apply only to workers ■ who are engaged specifically as muster- ■ ers or packers. Any regular farm or ■ station hand who assists m mustering, ■ or tvho is employed in packing, will not ; come within the scope of the award. We have not been satisfied that there is any necessity to make an award dealing with the subject of shepherds wages, or that- these workers desire tne interference of the Court in this matter. Shepherds are / engaged ueually at a yearly salary, and are provided with board and lodging, and m some cases have privileges in addition. The salaries paid range from £65 to £120 per annum, this last-mentioned sum being the salary paid to the head shepherd on one station. The question of a living wage, therefore, does not arise in the case of shepherds. The Union called as witnesses in connection with the demands as to shepherds several workers who had been employed as shepherds, but of these only two were actually employed as shepherds atj;he date when they gave evidence before the Board. Mr Kennedy said that a large number of shepherds had joined the Union, but he could not give any definite information as to the number of shepherds who are now members of the Union. Whatever that number may be, it is certain that the demands of the Union with regard to shepherds did not originate in any general dissatisfaction on the part of shepherds with their condition, or in any general desire on their part to have their wages increased. We have decided, therefore, to leave the wages and other conditions of shepherds to be settled, as heretofore, by agreement between the parties. THE COURT'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO FARMERS. The following are the recommendations which the Court makes to all farmers in the industrial district : — (1) That all day labourers wno receive only a money payment for their services shall be paid not less than <c per day. . ,-,-,■■ (2) That when general farm hands are employed at harvesting the bonus to be paid to them shall be such a sum as will make their wages, for the time they are actually engaged in harvest work, not less than. 50s per week. (3) That whenever it is reasonably practicable each farm worker shall bo allowed a half-holiday on one day of the week if he desires it. (4) That each regular farm worker shall be allowed at least one week's holiday in the year on full pay. (5) That when general farm hands havo to milk cows twice a day they shall be allowed an interval for rest during the day, in addition to the ordinary dinner hour, except, of course, at the busy seasons of the year. MR M'CULLOUGH DOES NOT CONCUR. Mr M'Cullough does not concur in. this judgment. He is strongly of opinion that grounds exist which justify and render necessary the interference of the Court, and that it is possible to make a workable award on the subject. THE AWARD. The following are the provisions of the> award, which will take effect on September 1, 1908, and will continue in force until May 1, 1910:— (1) Wages of Musterers and Packers. - (a) Mustorers when employed to muster sheep for any purpose shall be paid not • less than 10s per day if engaged for less than a week, and £2 2s per week if engaged for a week or moro, witfe an additional payment in the last-men* tioned case of lbs for any Sunday on which any inusterer shall be required to do any mustering, (b) Any mu^terer required to do any snow-raking shall I be paid not less than 10s per day while 1 engaged in such work, (c) Packers em- I

in connection with mustering H^ll be paid not less than £1 10s per ■2) Youths.— Youths may be eniployHto learn mustering at not less than following rates in addition to board ■l lodging:— For the first year 17s bd H week ; for tho second year £1 week. ' ■The proportion of learners to adult Hsterers shall be not more than one ■four or fraction of first four. He!) Sleeping Accommodation .—ln all Hes where it is reasonably practicable Hsterers and packers shall be providHby employers with good dry sleepH accommodation /on tho hills, and Krision shall be made for the protecHn ol ! all bedding from wet during Hm^it and while in use. ■4) Food.— Sufficient food of good qual- ■ (including butter) shall be supplied H nmsterers and packers by the em■s.) Matters in Dispute.— lf any quee■n shall arise in connection with the ■m sions of this award, or as to any ■tter not provided for by this award, ■h question shall be settled by agree■ut bettroen. the particular employer Hcerned and the local representative ■ the Union appointed for that purHe, and in default of any such agreeHnt tho question shall be determined H the Stipendiary Magistrate of the Htrict in which the same shall have Hsen. Pending the settlement of any Hfc question, work shall p> on as Hal and the settlement ofr decision Hy be made to operate/retrcepecH6) No Discrimination.— Employers Hu not > in tne engagement or dismisH oi their workers, discriminate Hiinst members of the Union nor in H> conduct of their business do anyHng for the purpose of injuring the Hion whether directly or indirectly. H~) When members of the Union and Hi- m etnDm\s are employed together, H>re 6Dall be no distinction between H)m and both shall work together in H™ony and un^ er tne same ccmd ltions Hd shall receive equal pay for equal HS)' Exemption of Regular Farm and H*,tiou Hands. — The provisions of this Hard shall not apply to any, worker Ho is employed regularly as a farm H^ station hand and who assists in Histering or who does packing for mus- _^_______________