employed for a fortnight
continuously and who is not entitled to a week's notice before his
employment is determined. A new light was thrown by the evidence in this
case on the growing tendency of some men to depend on the high rates for
casual work only, to enable them to work when they thought fit, and idle
when they felt inclined.... The yearly return of so many seasonal hands
for the wool and grain season, year after year, who look for casual
work elsewhere in the meantime in shearing sheds--on the wharfs--in
other industries and even in the Government temporary service--and
prefer casual work is not an encouraging sign. The higher rates paid for
casual work do, and will, encourage many men to rely on that class of
labor. I do not think that is good for the community or for the
employee. I have been asked not to encourage the tendency to prefer
casual labor by granting high rates for casual labor.

"Although the rates for casual labor ought not be so high as to induce
men to become casual laborers, a higher rate must in fairness be
allowed, where as in this industry, men, however anxious they may be to
get permanent work, are not employed for the whole season without a
break, and many of them are only employed a short broken part of the
season, and some are employed for a day or a few days only."[99]

6.--In the examination of the reasons for and against limitation or
variation of the principle of standardization, note must be taken of
still one other argument of a somewhat different nature than those
already dealt with. That argument is that it will prove impossible to
maintain uniform standard wage rates throughout an industry in which the
various enterprises are distributed over a wide area; in the several
parts of which area the cost of living, the general conditions of labor,
and the demand and supply situation for labor differ considerably.

This contention is supported by two different lines of reasoning. The
first is that, because of these differences, there will tend to be a
flow of labor away from the less favorable points of employment within
the area of standardization towards the more favorable. This flow, it is
said, will cause a reappearance of the differentials which existed
before standardization. The first comment to be made on this line of
reasoning is explanatory, rather than contradictory. It is true that
there may be some tendency for labor to flow from the less favorable
points to the more