WORKERS ON FARMS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 202, 27 August 1936, Page 8

WORKERS ON FARMS

BILL BEFORE HOUSE MINOR AMENDMENTS MINISTER EXPLAINS , . CLAUSES WAGES AND HOLIDAYS 't, [Per Pre.->3 Association j WELLINGTON, Aug. 25. . The committal of the Agricultural Workers* Bill was moved by the Min- j‘ tster oi Labour, Hon. H. T. Arm- ; 1 strong, in the House of Represema- ( * fives this afternoon. Dealing witn the definition of a ? dairy farm under the Bill, the Mir.Ister said it had been found that they [‘ could hardly classify a farm on the [, butterfat it produced and it was con- t sidered it would be fairer if the de- l ( 11 nition were based on the number of , cows milked. It was thought that ten ; rows would be a fair start for su< h , purpose. This number of cows, how- ( ever, would not necessarily ciass a;' farm as a dairy farm. For instance, L if there were ten cows on a sheep , farm it would not class that farm a.> [j a dairy farm. The ten-cow limit ( would only be applicable where milk j was being sold. Another clause, said the Minister.,, would prevent tne employment of j. any child on a farm wno was under ■ the age of 15 years. This provision , would not apply io the families of farmers and the Min.si er announced ,< tnat he intended to move w hen the j House went into committee that thia j clause should also not apply to boys jj under 15 who already were in em- ; ploy mem on farms. With regard to wages and holidays, Mr. Armstrong stressed the fact that ; where board was not provided for ‘ farm workers an extra 17s 6 1 a week must be provided with the minimum •< wage. Provision was also made in [ the Bill for under-rate workers. The | Government recognised that some workers on farms were old-age pen- p s’oners, some were aged but noi i eligible for pensions, while others were younger people who were physi- < rally nnt able to do a decent day’s ' work. It was to such as that the under-rate workers’ clause would p apply and would provide for i h*» pay- 1 ment of less than the minimum wages 11 of other workers. Holiday Provision* With reference to holidays, Mr. Armstrong said that personally he would have liked to have been able to grant a day and ?-half weekly or even a forty-hour week to farm workers, but he was afraid that this s would he impracticable and it had . been decided that such workers be , granted four weeks* holiday on full ' pay per year plus 8s 9d per week, which was half the amount of the I estimated boarding allowance. It also ; had been decided that where the , worker was granted a half-day holi- J dav a week he be only granted two ; weeks’ annual holiday. Another new clause which had been | added !o the Bill was that which en- ■ n’nled th«» inclusion under the provi- ■ sions of the Bill of farmers other than dairy farmers. The Labour PillCommittee. said the Minister, had | been approached bv farmers all over ihp Dominion asking for inclusion • under th° Bill. For instance, the I New Zealand orchardists had approached him for inclusion, as the orchardists considered that if the.' ' came under it it would obviate to a ( certain extent the possibilitv of theii > h’ing brought before the Arbitration : Court in an industrial disnute and Ihe I provisions of the Bill were unite acceptable to them. Personal!'*. said j Mr. Armstrong, he world favour a mutual agreement bv farmers and I workers thror"ho''t th» Dominion re- ■ warding conditions and wage? without recourse tn the Arbitration Court. ; renly to a remark bv a membe i nf the Opposition. Mr. Armstrong said he had o»en secretarv of the Chii-f- ! church Tramwavmen's Union manv vears before he became a member of Parliament and had never once gone : before the Arbitration Court for an , agreement. Mr. W. J. Pn*«nn: You were a cun- • ning old dog. You got your ow n way ! e’ o-v time. (Laughter.' Mr. Armstrong concluded that it i anomalies were found in the Bill j th*-v cou’d bp reviewed next year. Hon. G. W. Forbes said he con-ld-er<-rj there was less necessity for a Rill fixing wages on farms at pre-en* ; than there had b°en for some time past. Prices for farm produce were ( increasing all round and the wages of farm workers were affected by the ; 'cages of workers outside. In boom ; times the farme- had *o compete in ; the labour market with outside employers and wages on farms increased according!' He always believed in paving good wage® to fnrrr workers and a good man never had difficulty in getting work and th*' best wage- offering. Mr. H. M. Christie (Government ; Waingwai expressed the opinion that • Ihe Bill would assist in securing the necessar*v labour for farms. Mr. Christie said the holiday pro- j posal was quite a reasonable one and I was already exceeded by many far- > mers to-day. The Bill really dealt , only with bad employers of labour farmers who were paying a very low > wage. Many farmers paid more than I was provided in the Bill and would not be affected by it. Mr. Polson’s Views Mr. W. .1. Polson ‘Opposition. Strat-J ford) did not agree that most of the , troubles of the farmer were due tn i inflated land values and he thought it • would he a mistake to deflate land ’ values to too serious a level as it I would hinder, if not stop, development. | The Bill was merely an experiment ; for one year to discover whether it j was possible to continue and he • thought it would be possible. He believed that farmers* organisations thought the questions should be settled by negotiation and the only alternative was the Arbitration Court. The farmers had always felt that wages in their industry were too low hut they were handicapped by market prices. He said that men who were drawing good wages were leaving farms to take contract work on public works and they could not be blamed for so doing. Mr. Polson said