THE Maoriland Worker SEPTEMBER, 1910. THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

Maoriland Worker, Volume I, Issue 1, 15 September 1910, Page 3

THE Maoriland Worker SEPTEMBER, 1910. THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

The Maoriland shearers have declined to engage for less than £1 per 100. Their labour is their capital, and they have withdrawn it from the market because they did not think the profits sufficiently enticing. This, they are told, constitutes a moral, if not a legal, breach of the " strike " clauses in the Arbitration Act. Was the Arbitration Act, then, intended to be a means of coercing men into working for rates which they themselves knew to be unprofitable P Their next sin consists in an alleged breach of award in Canterbury, where the minimum rate is 18s. The argument is that, in declining to work for " the award rate/ the shearers have flouted the Court. Those who make the charge have evidently not digested the ordinary language of an award, that the workers in the industry concerned shall be paid " not less than " a certain specified amount. As a fact, there is no such thing as "the award rate." An Arbitration Court award does not specify any one rate of wages at all. In the case of the Canterbury shearers' award, the minimum rate is stated to be not less than 18s per 100, and therefore any rate of payment from 18s up to infinity is " an award rate." An award' merely provides that workers

shall get NOT LESS THAN a certain price. How much MORE they get depends on themselves. The next enormity committed by the shearers is that of informing his Honor Mr Justice Sim that they found themselves unable to comply with the employers' demands to furnish shearing labour at 17s 6d per 100, and that they would be obliged to cease supporting the industry unless they received 20s per 100. This., they were told repeatedly in the newspapers, was a most improper threat to make. It would be interesting to know wherein the attitude adopted by the shearers differs (1) from that of the farmers in the Canterbury farm labourers' dispute, when they threatened to cease growing wheat if the workers' demands were complied with ; and (2) from that of the agricultural implement makers, the boot manufacturers, and numerous other employers, when they threaten to import instead of manufacturing locally the various articles by the sale of which they earn a few crusts. Lastly, the shearers are told that if they did not intend to abide by the award, they should not have gone to the Arbitration Court at all. The reply is, first, that they did not go to the Court, but were cited by the employers ; second, declining to engage at the MINIMUM rate of pay is not " refusing to abide by the award "; it is merely carrying out the Arbitration Court Judge's repeated advice to workers—that if they did not like the rates they could "go away" from the work altogether. There is, of course, the general question involved, that when two parties agree to submit a dispute to an arbitrator, they are bound in honour to accept loyally the finding of that arbitrator. This must necessarily be so as regards, e.g., work already performed ; but when the arbitration is sought for the purpose of deciding on suitable rates FOR WORK TO BE DONE IN THE FUTURE, it is obvious that no arrangement need necessarily be made or implied that the work shall be done at all. The arrangement is merely that IF the work is undertaken, it must be performed at rates not less than those scheduled.

All these charges are, of course, raised only by those who prefer talking '' legalese '' to talking common-sense. The real points for consideration are (1) the worth of the work and (2) the ability of the industry to pay the rates asked by the shearers, viz., £1 per 100. The first point is settled by the fact that Australian shearers, North Island shearers and farmers' shearers are already paid £1 per 100 and more. The second point was dealt with very effectively by Mr A. R. Barclay in Dunedin recently. Mr Barclay gave the following interesting figures:— In 1901 there were in New Zealand 20,000,000 sheep, and the weight of wool exported was 147,500,000 lb, and the value over three and a half millions. In 1907 there were in New Zealand 21,000,000 sheep, and the weight of wool exported was 168,000,000 lb, and the value over seven and a half millions. This not only showed, said Mr Barclay, that the weight of wool clipped from each sheep was much greater than formerly, but that the value of that wool had increased enormously, and therefore the employers were abundantly able to meet the demand for a slight increase in the shearing rate. The position of the dispute at present is this:—The North Island dispute wae, on August 26, referred by the Conciliation Commissioners to the next sitting of the Arbitration Court on September 22. The Canterbury dispute has also been adjourned to the same date. In the meantime the Canterbury shearers and owners have agreed to accept the finding of the three Conciliation Commissioners with regard to rates and conditions. This finding has still to be made, and to anticipate its nature at this stage would be most improper. By the time the October number of the Maoriland Worker is published, the shearers' dispute will be concluded—so far as the legal proceedings are concerned—and a full history of its development will be published as a supplement. The temptation to prophesy a clear win for the men is strong, but —it- must be resisted!!