FARMERS’ UNION IN CO-OPERATIVE LABOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 412, 10 May 1902, Page 4

FARMERS’ UNION IN CO-OPERATIVE LABOR.

(To the Editor of the Times)

Sir, —At the late meeting of the Farmers’ Union a resolution was passed which appears to call for some comment. The motion in question contained a somewhat uncalled for sneer at the competence of co-operative workmen which may be accounted for by the fact that the mover and seconder were the respective Chairmen of two County Councils, but that a member of the Gisborne Harbor Board should be found willing to advocate the continuance of the contract system can only bo regarded as a triumph of hope over experience. That County Couueils are opposed to co operative work is no new thing, but that Councillors should attempt to induce the Farmers’ Union to endorse their prejudices is worthy of being noted by a large proportion of their constituents. The reasons of Councillors for opposing the co-operative system of carrying out public works are not hard to find. A largo majority of Councillors are employers of labor, and, for the most part, labor omployed on land, and they are perfectly well aware that their interests are best served by any system of work which tends to prevent working men from becoming independent of their employment. It is an often-used platitude that the interests of employer and workmen are identical. They are not, and never will be, as long as the present absurd system of competition in the production and distribution of commodities continues. Their interests are exactly those of buyer and seller. It may be to tho interest of both that the sale should take place ; but the terms of such sale are, and must be, a matter of opposition. Whatever may' be the merits or demerits of the co-operative system, their principal uso at present is that of an object lesson. When the workers buvo realised that roads, railways, and the like can bo made without the payment of toll to a middleman, they will not be long before they see that farms, stations, and factories can be worked on tho same lines, and that it is just as easy to work for themselves as to work for someone who takes a heavy percentage of their earnings on the ground that he contributes managerial skill, which the workers are quite as capable of finding amongst themselves. There are many objections made to the co-operative system which have not much foundation, such as that a contractor would do the work cheaper and quicker, and that people would know what a piece of work was. going to cost, and when it would be finished. It has even been asserted that if the railway had been in the hands of a contractor it would have reached the Motu by this time. Now, a contractor will do work just as fast as funds are suplied to him, and co-operative workers will do just exactly the same. As regards another objection, it is not necessary to go far from the the town of Gisborne to find contracts which are not quite finished within the appointed time, and whose total cost can hardly be calculated by reference to the original tenders. As to the relative dbst of doing work under the two systems, the truth is probably something like this : The value of shifting, say, so many yards of earth is fixed at 6d per yard. At this price a second-class or average man "an make 8s per day, a first-class man 10s, and a third-class worker 6s. That is one of the great advantages of the co operative system, that the men get just what they earn. Now, suppose a contractor cakes the same work at the same price—and it must be remembered that no contractor can continue to have work at a less amount than he is obliged to pay in wages, He will proceed as follows : He will only employ the best men, or if he is obliged for some reason to take inferior ones he will expect the firstclass to make up for the deficiencies of tho second, then by driving the men as hard as they will stand being driven and by shaving a few corners off the specifications, he reduces the actual cost of shifting the earth to 44d per yard, which enables him to put lid in his pocket. Curiously enough farmers and other employers do not object much to this kind of profit, as long as it does not go into the hands of the actual workman and thus tend to make him fastidious and independent, for it is obvious that if a man can make 8s in eight hours on road works, he will not be very keen to work 12 or 14 hours on a farm for five or six shillings, and this notwithstanding the fact that many farmers and station holders regard themsolves as public benefactors, on the grounds that they provide a large number of hands with employment. When an employer can be found who will provide work for any other consideration than his own profit he will be entitled to at least part of the credit he claims. The cooperative system is no doubt subject to some abuses, principally those of management, and these are at times so considerable as to amount probably to a tenth part of those which occur under ' the contract system. There are many questions besides this of co-operative work which will have to be threshed out between the Farmers’ and Labor Unions. One of the first and most important of these is the question of the labor, or rather slavery, - which is supposrd to be indispensable in in the increasing dairy industry. It is I hardly worth while to try to define the | somewhat indistinct line which separates j ka*d worlf fronr slavery, but in this case it I may be defined as any form of labor which compels its followers to work alike on seven days in the week. This question of Sunday labor is one in which the workers might fairly expect that the churches would be on their side. But will they be '? The study of history does not hold out much hope of it. If the Farmers’ Unions will, instead of wasting their power in a useless struggle, follow the example of the Labor Unions, and use their organisation in obtaining a fair and steady price for their commodities by eliminating some ,cf the swarm of middlemen who come between producers and consumers, they will do better than by stirring up a strife 1 which can only result in loss to all concerned.—l am, etc.,