TOILERS IN COUNTRY SEEK HIGHER WAGES

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18926, 23 November 1929, Page 9

TOILERS IN COUNTRY SEEK HIGHER WAGES

DROVERS. MUSTERERS AND PACKERS APPEAL TO ARBITRATION COURT The Canterbury musterers, packers and drovers, in the Arbitration Court to-day, asked for increased wages. Their claims were: Musterers, £1 10s a day and found, Sunday work, time and a half; packers, £1 a day and found, Sunday work time and a half. Musterers and packers engaged on snow-raking, £1 15s a day: youths learning mustering £2 10s a w*eek for the first year, £3 5s for the second year, and found: drovers, £1 5s a day and all necessary expenses. The' employers stood by the old award.—Musterers, £4 6s a week or 17s 8d a day if engaged by the day, 17s 8d extra for Sunday work if engaged by the week: packers, £3 11s a week or 16s 2d a day: £1 5s a day for musterers and packers engaged on snow-raking: drovers, £1 Is 8d a day, and necessary expenses: youths learning mustering, £1 10s a week for the first year, £2 for the second year. The Court consisted of Mr Justice Frazer (president), Mr L. J. Schmitt (employers’ representative) and Mr A. L. Montcith (employees’ representative). Mr A. Cook, with Mr C. E. Baldwin, appeared for the employees, and Messrs W. H. Nicholson and A. S. Cookson (Dunedin), for the employers. Mr Cook said that musterers, packers and drovers did not participate in increases obtained by other pastoral workers during the 1928-29 season. They were entitled to an increase equal to the increase granted to shearers, shed hands, and others. Musterers were worth £1 10s a day, in view of the nature of their work and the cost of their outfit, from £6O to £75, including four to six good dogs, one or two horses, saddle, harness, and blankets. A first-class dog could not be obtained for less than £2O. A packer must be a skilled worker, an expert bdshman and a good cook, and must have a thorough knowledge of horses. He had to rise not later than 2 a.m, His work was never done. The wage asked for a packer was very modest. Pro vers must be skilled and competent. They had very unpleasant work and heavy responsibility. They had to travel long distances at their own expense, to visit stock sales on the chance of getting a drive, and often were disappointed. The upkeep of a drover's horses and dogs was an expensive item. He was lucky if he averaged six months’ work, a year. As to conditions, the sheepowners had been very lucky. The award was the shortest in New Zealand. It should be ever# employer’s duty to give good treatment to his employees, especially in providing tents, mattresses, sleeping bags and waterproof sheets. The Shipowners’ Burden. Mr Nicholson said that In the pastoral industry the position was greatly in favour of the employee, with his as surance of a fair wage, which must be paid irrespective of the condition of the industry. There had been decreased prices for wool and lamb. Recent increased taxation was in many cases a crushing blow that individual sheepowners had to face with lowered incomes. There was no ground for the claims on the plea of cost of living. All rroods showed only 60 per cent above pre-war levels, while musterers, under the previous award, were given 771 per cent more wages than before the war. The employers always were prepared

■to pay the economic value of labour, but no single case, or even any set cf cases, could be the basis of argument to cover the whole: each case, usually, had its own circumstances. If primary production was maintained, there must be some freedom of contract between the parties. The employees’ claims were wildly extravagant. They were quite outside the capacity of the industry. The claims did not provide for a weekly rate. That was very unfair. It was manifestly unfair to suggest that men employed continuously for long periods should be paid on a casual basis. The claims on behalf of youths were out of all proportion to the value of the work. As far as conditions were concerned, every requisite was adequately provided for in old award. One clause in the claims," if inserted in the award, would result in no rights remaining to an employer to use his permanent hands for any of the operations covered by the award. The effect would be practically to do away with the permanent employment of shepherds and other workers on farms and stations engaged in mustering or packing, and to force an employer to shorten to the minimum the time of employment of workers under that head. The Court will consider its award, and adjourned till 10 a.m. on Monday.