FREEZING DISPUTE

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXII, Issue 20, 16 February 1927, Page 8

FREEZING DISPUTE

• vz ■■ CLAIMS OF THE UNIONISTS. CASE FOR THE FARMERS. WELLINGTON, Monday. The hearing of the Dominion freezing workers ’ dispute was opened in the Arbitration Court, Mr Justice Frazer presiding. The workers were represented by Messrs Sill (Auckland) and Ellis (Christchurch), and the employers by Messrs Sanderson (for the companies), Wilkins (secretary of South Island Freezing Companies ’ Association), and Milne (chairman of the Now Zealand Freezing Companies’ Association). Mr Sill outlined the workers’ claims as follows: —The deletion of the clause affecting the hours of chamberhands, to bring them to the same as other workers, to bring overtime rates into line with other awards; prevention of the alleged abuse of the contract system by employers; that the proportion of learners bo 1 to 10, instead of 1 to 3; an incrase in the minimum average wage to £3 12/- per week, as the work, once casual only at the beginning and close of the season, was now casual all through. An increase of 10 per cent in wages, all round, was asked, in which application the points to be considered "would be the standard of living and the position of the industry. 'Mr Sill said that the 1914 standard of living could not be adopted to-day. It should be on the standards of to-day, not those for 13 years ago. Among other arguments he said that the period of the year in which workers were employed had decreased to-' about half, owing to the increase in the number of works and over-capitalisation. The main causes of the difficulties had been created by the management, and could be controlled by it". The position was not so bad as whs generally assumed. The capital invested, including bank overdrafts and other loan moneys, grew from £1,19.1,511 in 1914, to £4,821,513 in 1924, but the incrase did not give increased output. Mr Sill further suggested that the increase in management and office charges for 43 companies, instead of 28 in 1914, the expenses of buying staffs in competition, the payment of excessive prices for stock, allowance for rebates, and payment of royalties to secure stock, were further causes-, for the position of the companies to-day. Tn the evidence of various witnesses the following wages were stated to have been received:—Labourers £4 5/5, £3 5/4, £3 18/7; freezing workers, £3 16/10, £3 11/7; slaughtermen, £5 12/-, £5 6/2, £5 9/2, £5 4/7; slaughterhouse assistants, £3 11/6, £3 18/10; fellmongers, £3 17/1. HARDSHIPS OF THE- FARMERS. Mr AV. J. Polson, President of the N.Z., Farmers’ Union, said:—“l have endeavoured to obtain the balance sheets of a number of farmers, for the confidential use of this Court. Unfortunately, it is only those farmers with a considerable balance of assets over liabilities who can be induced to offer their balance sheets for scrutiny. It is unfortunate that the great bulk of producers object to having their embarrassments dragged into the light. I would further point.out to the Court that small fanners have been in many cases working long hours, depriving’ themselves of the amenities of civilised life, which every worker nowadays re* gar.ds as part of his birthright, and that nothing appears in their balance sheets to represent this item. The worker receives his wage at regular intervals; the farmer’s wage depends upon next season’s, markets,, which places him at a double disadvantage Jn a period of declining prices. . The small farmer whose land is assessed for' land tax at less than £2000,. and who constitutes two-thirds of the farming class, is worst hit, because his labour creates a considerable proportion of the value of his product when compared ■with his capital. Farmers of this class who do not live with the greatest frugality and practice the greatest economy, cannot hope to survive these com tions. I do not' wish to reduce the worker’s standard of comfort, but I am satisfied that reduced costs of production would mean reduced cost of living. I have been ablc to make some investigations in such • countries - as Denmark and Holland, the basis of living is vastly lower than in New Zealand, but where standard of comfort is undoubtedly as high, if not higher. The reason is that production costs arc low. Mr Polson contended that inflat.ecl land values wore not wholly responsible for the unsatisfactory position of the farmer. ‘ ‘ High costs, including labour • costs, duo to the increased cost of living, restrictions imposed on employers ,by this Court, and the slackening of

effort during the. recognised hours of labour by workmen generally, are the chief causes. Freezing costs must be reduced. The price of service is dictated by the largest works' in New Zealand. At the present time all the small works arc running at a loss, with the result that they arc being closed down by, a process of exhaustion. These works perform a distinct service to the producer in some eases, and their withdrawal is in those districts a retrograde step from the point of view of efficients service, local observation, and supervision', and the prevention of loss through long • railway journeys for ■'such as lambs. A monopoly for some large works is rapidly being created, in which labour conditions play a considerable part. The farmer’s protection against unfair labour demands is the smaller works. The freczingy.companics .arc in a , different position .to the farmers. They are in a position to pass ’their charges on. Similarly, they would be in a position to pass on anv reduction.” ■