Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1942

Vol. 86 No. 10

Public Business. - Adjournment Debate—Wages of Turf Cutters.

I gave notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, acting on behalf of the Minister for Finance, in connection with some questions which I addressed to the Minister for Finance on turf cutters' wages last week. My question last week was designed to ascertain what rate of wages it was proposed to pay sleansmen and wheelers employed in the production of national turf in County Kildare for the current year, and I was informed in reply that workers engaged in turf production on the Government camp scheme will be paid at the rate of 32/- per week of 48 hours, with overtime at the rate of 1/- per hour. In the case of workers residing in the camps a deduction of 5/- per week will be made in respect of board and lodging. Piece-work will be paid for at rates set to earn for a good worker 1¼ times the time rate.

I endeavoured, then, to elicit from the Minister what rate of wages would be paid in respect of local turf cutters who are not resident in the camp. I was informed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that these persons would be paid the same rate as persons residing in the camp. At all events, that gives a picture of turf cutters' wages for the coming year. Those residing in the Government camps are to be paid 32/- per week, less 5/- for food which they get in the camp, meaning a net wage for these workers of 27/-. A local worker not resident in the camp, but employed under the Government camp schemes, according to the answer which I received last week, will be paid 32/- a week as well. I endeavoured to call the attention of the Minister last week to the fact that this would mean a very substantial reduction in wages for local workers in County Kildare, and it may very well happen it may mean a substantial reduction in wages in other countries as well.

While I am concerned with the general aspect of the matter from the national point of view, I want to take this as it affects County Kildare, with which I am particularly familiar. Last year the workers in County Kildare were able to get wages of 8/- to 10/- per day as sleansmen, and 6/- to 7/- per day as wheelers, and that rate of wages was paid by the county council. Where the persons concerned were employed by private persons in the cutting of turf, there was often no distinction in the payment as between the sleansmen and the wheelers. A result of that was that, for work as sleansmen 48/- a week was paid, and for work as wheelers 36/- to 42/- a week was paid. Rates equal to those, or higher than those, were paid by persons who engaged workers for the cutting of turf privately. Therefore, it looks as if the Government scheme, so far as it affects the County Kildare this year, is very likely to result in a substantial reduction of wages for workers employed in the Government camp scheme.

It may well be that the Government have in mind some proposal by which private persons may not be able to engage local turf cutters, except under conditions which will force down the rate of wages for those privately employed turf cutters, or prevent them from obtaining a full week's work when privately employed in the cutting of turf. I think it is a retrogressive policy to force down wages at any time. To reduce wages to a level of 32/- a week for the cutting of turf—a strenuous and skilful occupation—is to do something which I am satisfied will produce intense dissatisfaction and will not result in the production of turf on the scale which is so vitally necessary at the present time.

Strikes have already taken place in certain counties over this matter, and I am perfectly satisfied that further strikes will take place, if efforts are made to induce men to work for that low rate of wages. I am further satisfied that even if there are not strikes there will be a feeling of dissatisfaction, and a sense of grievance, which will militate against the production of turf on as satisfactory a scale as everyone would desire. At this stage my anxiety is to ensure, before tempers get frayed, and before the issue is knit, that there should be a national conference on wages between the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, the Turf Board and the representatives of the workers.

It is better to start by endeavouring to get goodwill and co-operation. Further, I say that every effort should be made to arrange a conference at which the whole question of wages will be discussed from the standpoint, that the State on its part wants to pay a reasonable rate of wages to men engaged in a strenuous task, under conditions which are by no means ideal, and, on the other hand, that the workers, in recognition of the payment of decent wages, will co-operate by producing the maximum quantity of turf. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can quarrel with an effort to find a wage level with these two objects in view.

I am raising the matter now in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see the advantage of having consultation with the workers' representatives, and endeavouring to fix a rate of wages which will give satisfaction to the workers and ensure the maximum production of turf. I am satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary will learn, if he insists on a wage of 32/-, that turf will not be produced at 32/-, if the workers can get emigration visas or any other type of employment. The Parliamentary Secretary endeavoured to explain to-day why workers from Donegal left Newbridge. I do not accept 30 as the total number that left. If the Parliamentary Secretary has a check made I think he will discover that his information is out of date.

The information given me to-day was that the number would be more than twice that mentioned. That suggests that something must have been wrong at Newbridge. I am not attempting to explain what was wrong, even if I had the time to do so. Workers were brought from Donegal to work on a State scheme. They were housed in military barracks, provided with food prepared by the military, and notwithstanding the fact that they came from Donegal and that the trip was by no means a pleasant one, they left the barracks in Newbridge and cycled back rather than tolerate the conditions they were asked to accept. I wager that there will be more of that type of dissatisfaction if efforts are made to get workers to work for these wages. The moment they go into the production of turf they will realise how little they are being paid for what they are producing. When an offer of 32/- a week for the production of turf, presumably on a highly organised basis, is considered for turf costing 64/-, and that merchants who do not cut a sod, but merely distribute it, are allowed to get away with a profit of 16/- a ton.

They have got 16/- per ton.

The Deputy said "profit."

I will put it this way, because a case may be made for shrinkage, or that some of the water leaked out or dried out after a time, and that some of it perished. In any case the difference between the price merchants pay and the price at which they sell is, I understand, 16/-, a figure given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The workers will know that. They will know their wages are low, and that 27/- will be of very little use to their wives and children in Mayo and Donegal. If they have to buy commodities here to sustain themselves very little will be going back to Mayo and Donegal. That is the position of married workers. The local men get 32/-, a wage that I am satisfied will not attract considerable numbers. As it is they take the work because of economic necessity. I am satisfied that the output of disgruntled workers will not be satisfactory. It would be better to pay a decent rate of wages and to get co-operation and enthusiasm for employment as that will be reflected in the inspiration given these people to give of their best. I am not raising this question in any capricious way, but in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see the advantage of arranging some conference at which conditions and wages will be settled, so that we can have the maximum activity in the production of turf this year. From the point of view of the nation this year may be a more vital year as regards fuel, than the past year, in view of the possibility that coal imports are likely to be substantially less.

The Deputy has quoted the answer which he received from Ministers who were good enough to act for me. The position is that the wage offered workers in the camps and to all who are going to work under the Turf Development Board cutting turf in Kildare this year will be 32/- for a 48-hour week, with 1/- an hour overtime. In other words, comparing that with the rate with which it has to be compared, the agricultural rate, it is 32/- plus 6/-, or 38/-, against 33/- for agricultural labourers. But the significant side of the matter is that they are all going to have the opportunity, if they choose, to get more wages by more production. For instance, if they work at piece rate, they will get one and a quarter time. That is the rate set for ordinary good workmen, and I take it that is the type of men Deputy Norton has in mind; that they would be able to earn not 32/-, but 8/- more than that, that is 40/- for a 48-hour week, and on the basis of the longer hours, a larger amount of money. As far as the private production of turf is concerned, it is not the concern of the turf controller to decide the wages. If people want to pay wages of a different character, there is at present no objection whatever, as far as I can see, to doing so. Roughly speaking, some 540 men were employed by the county surveyor.

In Kildare?

Yes. These men were not all experienced sleansmen or anything like it. They were all the people he could collect and even, with that number, the total amount of turf produced in Kildare last year—national turf, local-authority turf and voluntary-organisation turf—was not sufficient for the requirements of Kildare. The production in Kildare last year was not 1½ per cent. of the total production. This year, the county surveyor is not going to produce a large quantity of turf and, to the extent to which the county surveyor is going to produce a limited quantity of turf for the use of his county institutions, there is no interference with the rate. The rate remains the same but, in so far as he will be dealing, in my opinion, with considerably fewer men, he will be out to see that he will get, on a time rate of see that kind, men who will give him value. So far as the rest of the community is concerned, they will have the opportunity of earning on piece rate any amount of wages they choose to earn. I know that certain people have objectively—I do not quite know why —an objection to piece rates. They do not like to have them introduced. We had experience last year of piece rates and nobody who worked on them wants to work on anything else. Under this arrangement, everybody in Kildare who wants to work on turf will be employed on turf and everybody in Kildare who wants to work hard on turf will make good wages. That is the reason why that particular system has been worked out.

Deputy Norton alluded to the fact that turf to the consumer was costing 64/-. My object is to get the turf to the consumer at as low a price as I can, while meeting fairly all the different people on the way. He takes the case of what he calls, without adverting to the meaning of the word, the "profit" of 16/- which a merchant gets. I have not to say at the moment whether that is too high or too low; it is not my business. That happens to be the business of the Minister for Supplies. What Deputies have got to remember is that that is not profit, whatever else it may be. I shall get out, as a matter of interest, the amount of that which does not go to him at all —which goes in wages. I have, I think, told the House before that, of the very high retail price which is eventually charged to consumers, a high proportion does, in fact, go to labour. I am not at all sure that these costs—even labour costs—are evenly and fairly divided. As I told the House before, the cost of turf produced last year on a bog in Mayo did not, in many cases, equal the cost of bringing that turf from the bog to the railhead. Most of the cost of bringing it from the bog to the railhead was wages of another kind. You have then to put it on the railway truck. Deputy Norton probably knows the very high proportion of the total cost of rail transport, which is represented by wages. When you come to a city like Dublin, the cost of a man discharging and dealing with turf—which is, again, wages—is considerably more per ton than the cost of the turf itself. A ton of turf which was produced in Mayo last year on the side of the road at 12/6 might be subjected, in some portion of its progress, to wages at the rate of 16/- a day. All that is included in the 64/-.

In dealing with this matter, I am taking it that Deputy Norton is speaking in the spirit of seeking a solution of this difficulty. I find that everybody wants cheap turf from somewhere but everybody wants that portion of the total cost in which he is interested increased. My business is to see that none of it is increased to an extent that is unfair, if I can avoid it, and I fulfil that function by watching the costs which are involved in motor haulage to bring it to the railhead, in rail transport to bring it here and in the discharging and the ricking of it in the different places. It goes out of my hands at the point at which it goes into the merchant's premises but I have no doubt that the Department of Supplies are as critical of that 16/- and how it is made up as I am. All I can tell the House at the moment is that, for one reason or another, that sum of 64/- does not cover the cost. If these other charges, which are now suggested, are to be made and if there are to be increases of wages to the lower-paid workmen on turf—which I hope to see and which will be given purely and simply on the basis of some reasonable principle—these increases will have to be added to this figure of 64/- or will have to be collected in some other way from the same community who would have paid them if so added.

There is no reason whatever to believe that there will be dissatisfaction with the wage now being offered for the camps generally—32/-. We had over 1,000 applications for work in those camps at these rates before the advertisement was issued. I do not want to be too optimistic or too pessimistic. I told the House before that I regarded the camps from the beginning as a speculation, as one of those things we had to do because we might run into a condition in which turf would have to be produced near Dublin, whatever the cost. The evidence at present is that there will be a good response. As a result of a single advertisement, put in by accident before the proper time in a paper in the West, 340 applications were received.

Will they have to work 48 hours before they get overtime?

Yes. That is a perfectly legitimate point.

That is causing some dissatisfaction, too.

As the Deputy, probably, knows, in the case of other schemes every facility is given, when there is a break, to try to make up for that. It is right and proper that that should be done. We had a case to-day from Cobh. Three men walked into the labour exchange at Cork, having come up from Castletownberehaven with their sleans, and they are to go to the Kildare camp now at a wage of 32/-. They are skilled sleansmen. We may have any idea we like about theoretical differences, but we recognise the temptation to men at present to go abroad for these apocryphal wages. I think that Deputy Hickey properly raised that point to-day, and I should not have been disappointed if he had gone further; but the fact is that these men, in spite of that, regard these as good wages.

I have letters coming to me in connection with turf work, and asking when it is to start. That is no guarantee that these men will be amongst the crowd when work is started.

I am prepared to recognise that you may have a condition in which you start at the job, then have trouble and have to shut down. I have had to take certain risks in that matter. People may think that the tactical moment has arrived to do certain things. My experience last year in dealing with all the men concerned was that a tactical effort of that kind had very little encouragement from the body of the men, and that, unless there were merits, it collapsed. We found right through the year that there were little adjustments here and there which could be made in good faith and good will with the men who were working.

Could you not fix a flat rate for the whole area, with a differential rate in some areas?

That is only one of the things which has to be considered. The idea seems to be that we are not paying any attention to representations. It is not merely questions in this House which raise these issues. I have thousands of letters on these subjects. I have had interviews with all sorts of people who have come to me to give very real help. Two Bishops spoke to me about this matter, giving me practical information on the subject. I only mention that as an illustration. Many people recognise that this is a problem which requires solution. They are making their own effort to obtain a solution and we are dealing with these representations. The fact that we are getting the men from the places which were accustomed to these migrant wages suggests that the people are beginning to understand what these high wages mean. On the other side, at present, a man is paid very high nominal wages. He is paid in reality a wage in two forms—(1) a wage in the form of the maintenance of himself and his family on a ration standard, and (2) the rest in paper, which he can put into the waste-paper basket or put into a loan, whichever he likes. So far as the emergency period is concerned, that part of his wages is inoperative.

He is sending it back here.

This is the really serious question. So far as our people are concerned, when they go over there they are not paid the amount of money in maintenance sufficient for themselves and their families. That is what the man on the other side is paid. He is paid in goods the amount required, on a ration-standard, to maintain himself and his family. The rest is given him in paper. The men who go over from here are only paid in goods the amount sufficient to maintain themselves. The rest is given them in paper. That money is coming back here. What does that mean? Every single pound can be regarded as a debit note upon a pool of goods and services which it does not replenish by one penny. The people are beginning to understand that that money, which is coming back, is purely a debit note. It may be realised at some time in the future but, as long as the emergency continues, it imports no goods to balance itself.

This is a very heavy argument to advance on a question dealing with turf cutters' wages.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. Tuesday, 5th May.

Top
Share