LABOR AND CAPITAL.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 May 1918, Page 7

LABOR AND CAPITAL.

HOW TO EFFECT A BBCiONCILIATION - '<? A proposal to enlarge the scope of the Farmer*'. Union by admitting, to membership persons engaged in any pursuit that is essential to the primary production of the Dominion was discussed at the annual conference of the Taranaki Farmer*' Union, but did not find general favour, and was defeated. Mr G. H. Buckeridge, who introduced the subject, stated that he had done so last year and would do so again and again until it was brought about, because he was satisfied he was on the right lines. Last year he had read Lloyd George's remarks, and thought they would bear repeating. They were: — "The whole of society is in a molten state. You can stamp upon it anything you like, provided you act firmly and determinedly. There is no time to lose. The country will be prepared for better things immediately after the war than when the normal clash of selfish interest is resumed. Unless the opportunity is seized it may pass. I believe the aftetwar settlement will Bucceed in proportion to its audacity. If every class insists on not returning to pre-war methods you will get Teally a new world." They, would, he said, get back to pre-war conditions, and would have to be prepared for a change in the relationship between labour and capital or employee or employer, and he thought that there was no body of men better able to bring about a reconciliation between the laborer and the employer than fanners, many of whom had been both employee and employer, and therefore knew a little of the difficulties of the one and the responsibilities of the other, and he knew of no other class of men that combined those elements. There was no doubt that a very large section of labour were interested in the farmers as producers, and therefore farmers should become interested in labour, the men who assisted in handling and getting their produce away. , The fanners' had taken every step to make the article they manufactured a success, but they gave no credit for this success to the men who handled the produce on the wharf and were essential to the industry. This-was certainly a very big question, and he thought they should affirm the principle that labour should have the right to act with them and deliberate upon questions which were of as much importance to them and to the farmers, and to discuss the methods and conditions under which

they work. "The more wo have with us the loss we have against us, and if we can get the men to work amicably with us —and, I believe we can—we will have gone a long way to solve the labour problems that exist to-day." Mr Hodge seconded. Mr Dunn considered that the wharf labourers did paricipate in the enhanced values of the produce through the increased wages they received. Mr Buckeridge: We only give them what we have to. Mr Mills, while recognising Mr Buckeridge'a ability, considered that this was one of the points where he was wrong. If they opened the doors of the Union to all who were interested in primary production, he could not see where they would draw the line. They would have to open them to all the inhabitants of the Dominion. Mr Buckeridge: Why not? Mr Mille said-that he had no objection where tjj» interests were identical, but while they might bo identical in some matters there were others in which their interests would clash, and it was a pity to knowingly introduce dissension. Mr Maxwell thought that if Mr Buckeridge succeeded in his scheme it would extinguish the Farmers' Union. There were many organisations and he believed it was recognised that no one organisation eould or would do everything. He did not want to apppear unsympathetic to labour, but he thought that farmers were better fitted to understand their own affairs than, say, the bookmaker. He did not want to undertake the management of the wharf labourers' affairs, nor did he want to invite the wharf labourer to manage their farming affairs. Though they might work together on general lines, on particular details they must work separately. Mr Dawes said that farm labourers of more than three months standing ccould become members, so why pick wharf labourers alone? Mr Voullaire asked, What was a sharemilker? The reply was vouchsafed that th> Union regarded them as farmers. Mr Dawes asked whether they could not admit factory managers, who would be useful members. All reforms worth having had been carried in the face of opposition. Mr Dawes thought the remit was before its time. It would be found by knocking about among the labouring class that there was a considerable spirit of antagonism towards the farmer. Mr Davidson, Kaimata, said that up to a certain stage it would work alright., but after that it would not work. Mr Buckeridge said that ho was satisfied that, he was on the right lines. He recognised there had got to be an alteration in the conditions \inder which they were working and that ,the present was a great opportunity to take the first step towards reconciliation between labour and capital. If they wished to bring labour to a proper frame of mind they must teach him, and how could they do that if they stood on one side of the street and say they would have nothing to do with them? It was necessary that they should understand labour and that labour should understand them. He meant to persevere even if he had to start another organisation. If they admitted a few into the Union, the knowledge would filter through then to others. He was quite satisfied the Union would do something towards the reconciliation of labour and capital if they only tried. The remit was lost.