On the occasion of the departure from office of the previous Government there was a feeling amongst many classes of workers that there was then some hope of getting a readjustment of their wages and working conditions, and amongst that mass of working people were the labourers employed by the forestry section of the Department of Lands. I recall that early last year I raised the question of the wages of these workers with the Minister. I was then assured that he would give it sympathetic consideration.
I may say that one of the chief obstacles, to my mind and to the minds of the forestry labourers generally throughout the country, in their road towards getting a decent wage was the policy of the previous Government of tying their wages down to the level of those of the agricultural labourer. That policy was unjust and unsound, and it could not be justified by any logical reasoning. The minimum wage rates which are paid to agricultural labourers have been and are now, for the greater part of the country in areas where trade union organisation has not yet extended fully, determined by the Agricultural Wages Board. The Agricultural Wages Board, by reason of its composition, must necessarily fix wages which can be afforded by the farmer who is trying to live on the most uneconomic holding in the respective areas for which the Board is determining wages at any particular time. Any tying down of wages of any class of worker to the minimum wage rates laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board is an unjust thing. I suggest that it puts that class of worker who is not an agricultural labourer in the same category as the agricultural labourer struggling for a living on a small farm and paid by a farmer who may, in some instances, himself be struggling for a living and the wages, therefore, are detemined by the economic condition of the farmer. Therefore, as I say, in a policy of putting the wages of the forestry labourer on that level the forestry section was putting itself in the position of the poor farmer—and the Government of this country cannot be said, by any manner of means, to be a poor farmer so far as its economic condition is concerned. I recall fully a question I asked the Minister for Lands on the 9th March, 1948, whether he would consider altering the policy then in existence and if he would consider a departure from the policy of the former Government in tying down the rates of wages of forestry workers to those paid to agricultural labourers and the reply was: "Certainly." Forestry workers throughout the country, many of whom are organised in the Federation of Rural Workers, felt that here was some hope that they were going to get away from the condition of the slave wage rate and from the bad conditions that have been obtaining, and that still obtain, in nurseries and forestry plantations up and down the country even to this very day.
It took a considerable time until, in 1948, we got a differential of 5/- for the labourers over and above the minimum agricultural wage rates. That 5/- was in no way adequate to help these men to meet their responsibilities. Their responsibilities are not a bit less than those of higher paid workers or of the salaried classes or even of the members of this House. They may not be involved in expenditure to the same extent but a man working on forestry in Cork, Kerry, Wexford or any other part of the country has the same struggle to live as the person in a salaried position or the tradesman in a well paid occupation. He is asked to live on a wage which is unchristian and which does not afford him a dog's chance of existence. The differential of 5/- was introduced last year and late in the year, following a conference of forestry workers in Dublin, representing forestry workers in Counties Dublin, Mayo, Tipperary, Louth, Leix, Wicklow, Wexford, Kerry, Sligo, Galway and Carlow a letter was sent to the Minister setting out what could be regarded as minimum wages and conditions that the State was asked to pay to this relatively small body of workers. The forestry section was asked to pay a wage of £4 a week and to abandon the idea of relating the wages to the agricultural wage rates, They were asked that gangers or head labourers should receive 2/- per day or 12/- per week over the rate paid to ordinary labourers; that forestry workers be given Church holidays instead of bank holidays; that all Church holidays be given with pay; that the wages of carters be not less than £1 per day; that timber fellers, sawers, sawers' helpers and machine men at saw mills should have their wages increased in proportion; that protective clothing, rubber boots, etc., be supplied to each forestry worker.
Any reasonable person who knows what the rigours of manual employment are will agree that these demands could not be considered excessive or could not be considered to represent something which it is outside the scope of the Department to meet. They were framed with the idea that the Minister has a knowledge of this class of work and must therefore have sympathy with the men concerned. They were framed in the hope and expectancy that they would be met sympathetically.
I have here a letter dated 14th February. It is impossible to decipher the signature. It is not the signature of the Minister. This letter indicates the sterile mind of the civil servant applied to the question of workers' wages and conditions. The letter states that as from the 3rd January the wages of forestry labourers shall be the same as the wage rates paid to agricultural workers—the local minimum agricultural wage rates. In respect of the substitution of Church holidays for bank holidays it is stated that this is governed by the provisions of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939, and that, in any event, there can be no alteration in the number of holidays allowed to forestry workers. It states that the Department does not undertake to supply protective clothing, other than rubber boots, to forestry workers.
I do not know exactly how far the Minister has gone into this question but I can say definitely that the mentality of the man who framed that letter and the mentality of the officials dealing with the labourers in the Forestry Department is now and has been one of complete estrangement and complete carelessness as to whether these men live or die. It is high time that something was done for men who are out in all weathers on the mountainsides carrying out work of great national importance. This is unpleasant and arduous work and these men are exposed very often to the worst possible conditions, snow and everything else. Some realisation must be driven home to the forestry section of the importance of these men and of the necessity of giving them a reasonable return. There is one aspect of their employment which must give pause to anybody who considers working conditions as being of any importance, that is, the stopping of time for a Church holiday. When a forestry labourer goes to Mass on a Church holiday, he loses a quarter of a day. Yet we talk about Christian ideals. When we get a chance of putting practical Christianity into effect, we cut the labourers a quarter of a day because they observe their religious duties.
Surely the Minister must not be aware of that. He was written to on the matter. He may have overlooked it. That is an injustice of the greatest magnitude. Even the most despicable of our exploiting employers—and when I use that term I do realise that there is a section of employers who are more or less decent—would hesitate before they would cut their workers' wages because they went to Mass on a Church holiday. Here, we have the Government of this great Catholic nation taking this mean, low, petty action. It is high time that that was remedied and that the whole question of the conditions of employment and wages of forestry workers was remedied.
Some time ago there was a discussion in the House on the general question of afforestation. Very many Deputies indicated that afforestation was of tremendous importance and that they had a vital interest in it. We might as well be idle as to talk about reafforestation, we might as well be idle as to talk about the rehabilitation or the establishment of industry, if we do not look first to the primary operatives, the people who carry the industry on their shoulders. In this case the primary operatives are the labourers who, when all the office work is done, must go out and do the work on the mountain side. I feel that the Minister, being a practical man, and knowing the hardships that many of these labourers have to undergo, will not refuse to reconsider their case. The total number of forestry labourers is not so large that, if they were to get a substantial increase in wages, the whole economy of the country would be unbalanced or the Budget upset or too great a burden imposed on the Exchequer. I do not accept that. Given determination on the part of the Minister to improve the lot of these unfortunate men, progress can be achieved. Hardly a week goes by but you will read in the Sunday newspapers letters from forestry workers, and very often from the wives of forestry workers, outlining the hardships under which these men have to live, the distance they have to travel to work, etc.
In raising this matter I feel that I am doing what should be done by a lot of other Deputies representing areas where there are many forestry workers. I feel that I am speaking their minds on the matter. We have no forestry workers in my constituency, but in the trade union which I represent, the Federation of Rural Workers, there are very many men organised. It is, I believe, a fundamental concept of justice that these men should be given a better opportunity of living and rearing their families in Christian comfort, as God ordained them to do. I ask the Minister to indicate that he will give consideration to this matter again. I am loathe to believe that the letter of the 14th February was dictated by the Minister. I would prefer to believe that it represents the views of the officials of the Department of Lands, and I would appeal very strongly to the Minister, in the interests of these men throughout the country, to reconsider the whole question of their wages and working conditions and to do his utmost to make their lives a little easier and better than they are.
