FARMERS AND THE ARBITRATION COURT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19842, 17 May 1927, Page 6

FARMERS AND THE ARBITRATION COURT

Sir, —In reading the report of the Farmers’ Union meeting, of the Wanganui branch, in Thursday’s issue, I sec they decided to forward a remit to the annual conference to have tho Arbitration Court abolished. Failing the above, they want a farmer or two as assessors on the Arbitration Court. That is what I understand according to the report. I just wish to point out, Mr Editor, that it would not remedy matters much if the whole Court consisted of farmers. The whole principle is wrong. It is more efficiency that is required. A reduction in wages would be a very temporary solution of the problem. The Court may have done useful work in the past, but it has certainly outlived its usefulness and is responsible for many troubles that exist to-day. It must collapse sooner or later, as the foundation is rotten.

No one can say that it is sound policy to bring a good man down to the level of the inferior. The good man should be encouraged to do his best and be paid accordingly. But the Arbitration Court places him on equal footing with the poorest man on the job. If a farmer got no more for his produce of a high grade than his neighbour did for an inferior article, how long would he continue to try and produce the goods of a better quality? Until all classes of workmen are paid according to results and according to skill and ability, so as to bring about more efficiency, New Zealand will have to stop in the rut she is in at present. The Arbitration Court fixed its various awards on boom prices, consequently the price of produce to-day is unable to bear the burden. The high cost of production was apparently not worthy of consideration. All authorities say that prices of farm produce will remain on a lower level, so that it will be necessary for every one to fall into line. With the extreme high cost of production, second-class land has practically ceased to have any value. We hear a great deal about the tariff question. If our wage earners were paid by results, don’t you think that would settle the tariff question? The more efficiency, the greater the output, and we would automatically be able to compete with other countries. The long sea freights, handling charges, and revenue duty should be all the protection that is required. High tariff walls to allow people to go slow and loaf can only have one end—disaster.

I was a genuine wage-earner for several years myself and I find no fault at all with the wage-earners of this country for trying to get as much for their labour as they can. But their present method of protection has proved detrimental to all concerned, and has greatly interfered with the general prosperity of the country. It has certainly protected the inferior wageearner and the good man is brought down to his level, which has reduced our output and efficiency to a minimum.

By the remarks of the Hon. Downie Stewart at Feilding it is quite evident that the Government realises a change is reaquired, as he suggested a conference might bo held of the various employers, no doubt with a view of giving the Government a lead, although the honourable gentleman would not admit it. Seeing that every one is well-educated now-a-days and capable of looking after himself, the natural law of supply and demand should fill the bill. Although, personally, I don’t believe in the principles of the Arbitration Court, I am not going to say that it is responsible for all the troubles that exist. We find

quite a number of business men and farmers alike running about in expensive motor cars, wasting their own time and other people’s capital, as they have nothing themselves and are setting a poor example to others. There are too many living beyond there means. A? I have stated, wc must all fall into lino, do a bit more, and not forget the facl that efficiency is the only thing that will carry us through. A. STUART. “Runuymede,” Marton. May 16.