FARMERS AND THE 40-HOUR WEEK

New Zealand Listener, Volume 17, Issue 440, 28 November 1947, Page 7

FARMERS AND THE 40-HOUR WEEK

Behind the Scenes at a Controversial Broadcast

N the evening of Monday, December 1 — when the farmer has fed the pigs, made the hay, taught the pullets and hens to lay; shorn the sheep, sown theecrops, lopped the leaves off the turnip-tops-he will be able to sit back and listen to a discussion from 2YA, 2YH, 2YB, and 2ZJ on Farming and the Forty-Hour Week. Four experienced agriculturists will say what ‘they think about thé possibilities of a swérter working day for farmers and their helpers, and its effects on production, and a fifth speaker, their chairman, will sum up. . This’ session will be one of the series of broadcasts on controversial topics recently started by the Talks Department of the NZBS. The discussion group consists of the Hon. Ben Roberts, of Parkvale, Carterton, former Minister of Agriculture; E. W. McCallum, of Inaha, South Taranaki Provincial President of the Federated Farmers; George A. Walsh, sheepfarmer, of Cambridge, and member of the National Council of the Federated Farmers; the Hon. R. Eddy, M.L.C., former President of the New Zealand Workers’ Union; and L. J. Wild, formerly Headmaster of the Feilding Agricultural High School and

past-President of the Royal New Zealand Agricultural Society (chairman). Among the _ listeners who will agree or disagree with whet these people have to say, there will no doubt be many who will wonder why such a topical subject is not discussed at greater length. But they will not be familiar with the many difficulties that have to be overcome before a fite-handed debate can be broadcast at all. In this case the panel spent two hours or so on the morning of the session talking the subject over and marshalling their separate ideas. Each man supplied the chairman, confidentially,

with qa broad outline of his views, so that the chairman could frame his questions, The panel was told that only a certain amount of time could be allowed, and that this time-limit must be observed as closely as possible. When the time came to make the recording, the members settled themselves round the microphone, arranged

their rough notes, and the needle in the cutting-room next door began to cut the blank disc. The chairman introduced the subject by asking, "Can the 40-hour week be applied to the farming industry?" and suggested that the discussion should start by each member saying what he considered the farmer’s present working-hours to be. Four "Guesstimates" Mr. Roberts thought they would total about 55; Mr. McCallum reckoned from, say 60 to 65 per week, for a dairyman; and Mr. Walsh said he could put the average at from 60 to 70, perhaps. Mr, Eddy, referring to mixed farming, caused his colleagues’ and the chairman’s eyebrows to rise when he declared that farmers probably put in no more hours than the city industrial worker. Asked to explain how he got that idea, he said that after the city man had done his 40 hours for his employer, he went home to put in a few more hours doing odd jobs about his house ahd garden; and that would push his total hours up to the average farmer’s working week. It would have to be agreed, said the chairman, that the figures givén were more or less "guesstimates." Mr. Roberts maintained that it was both possible and desirable to adopt the 40-hours-a-week principle as it was applied to other industries; but he emphasised the word principle. And Mr. Eddy said he could hardly feel that the 40-hour week would be initiated immediately following their discussion, but he could not see why farmers should not enjoy some leisure as well as others. But, said the chairman, the cows simply won’t conform: they’re unreason}able creatures,

The dairy-farmer’s outlook was the gloomiest. For him it was maintained that he put in 40 hours a week in the cowsheds alone. And on top of that were the pigs, crops, fence-mending, weeding, and innumerable other duties. How on eascth could he call it a week after 40 hours? xs But compensation was paid for work in éxcess of 40 hours in other industries, interjected Mr. Roberts, who didn’t see why the dairy-farmer .should quibble, because his compensation came from his butterfat returns. Quite impossible economically, was the next contribution. The dairyfarmer could not get the necessary price to pay for work in excess of 40 hours. And the representative of the sheepfarmers contended that it would mean doubling the male working population on the sheep station. It seemed to Mr. McCallum that one of the éssentials was getting people to go into the country, and the inducement would be better accommodation. Yet that, he said, might result in the overcapitalisation of farm lands. The discussion went on to analyse the effect of a 40-hour week ‘on the price of foodstuffs, its effect on overseas markets, and the raising of costs, It was suggested that if the principle attracted more people to farming, it would, at any rate, serve one useful purpose, for the country life helped to develop in people characteristics of immense value to the nation. And what conclusion was reached? We will leave that for listeners to find out for themselves, by tuning in to 2YA, 2YH, 2YB, or 2ZJ at 8.20 p.m. next Monday.