WORK BOTH WAYS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3257, 30 April 1943, Page 3

WORK BOTH WAYS

MEETING AT MORRINSVILLE GRADING sharemilkers CHAIRMAN LEAVES MEETING The meeting arose out of recent discussions at Morrinsville Farmers’ Union meetings regarding protection for farmers from inexperienced labour, and it was emphasised by speakers from the start that any proposed scheme would have to work both days.

The question was brought up at the annual meeting of the branch by a farmer who instanced the case of a man who, he alleged, had practically ruined a man’s herd and had then turned round and asked the farmer for a reference. The hour at which the discussion was opened was late and the question was adjourned until the next meeting of the branch. Right of Reply

-Between the first meeting and the next meeting of the union a sharemilker alleged to the secretary that allegations had been made at the first meeting that he (the sharemilker) had ruined a man’s herd, and he asked the secretary for the right to reply to the allegation. The chairman ruled that any such discussion would be out of order and it was proposed that a special meeting should be held to discuss all aspects of sharemilking problems.

This was the meeting held. About fifty were present, including some ladies, and there appeared to be about 30 farmers and 20 sharemilkers. The meeting lasted for about 50 minutes.

In the discussions that have been taking place two questions have been allied—that of some system of “protection” or “grading” to protect farmers' from being “had” by inexperienced labour and the more personal issue of a sharemilker who alleged that derogatory remarks were made against him at a Farmers’ Union meeting and who has been seeking an opportunity to present his side of the case. The remarks objected to by the milker were alleged to have been made at a meeting of the Farmers’ Union by a farmer who cited a particular case when asking the. union if anything could be done about some system of grading sharemilkers. Meeting Declared Adjourned At the meeting at the saleyards, immediately the chairman had concluded his opening remarks, the hope expressed by him that a spirit of goodwill would prevail were dashed when the sharemilker in question opened" the discussion by referring to the personal question at issue.

The sharemilker in question rose to ask the farmer to repeat what he had said at the union meeting at this meeting, and before the discussion could advance a member proposed that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was carried and the chairman vacated the chair, but speakers continued to address the meeting and finally a motion was proposed. It was pointed out that they had no chairman and eventually Mr M. Ban, h sharemilker, took the chair. A resolution was carried and the discussion then developed into a personal argument which was just 'beginning to show some heat when members walked out and the meeting collapsed with the sharemilker addressing the chair.

High Tone of Chairman’s Remarks ■Opening the meeting, Mr W. A. ♦.■Rushton, president of the Morrinsjiville branch of the New Zealand ■ Farmers’ Union, by which branch the meeting was convened, said that history was repeating itself insomuch as 2000 years ago farmers had gathered in a cattle pen, where they found the remedy for all the world’s troubles. The position to-day was

somewhat similar to that at that gathering, except that they were looking for a solution of their own particular troubles. The simile further held good in relation to the wise men guided by a star, but they had no singing angels. He hoped however, that the same spirit of about which the angels had sung at the gathering long ago would be present at this meeting.

Giving the reason for calling the meeting, Mr Rushton said that at the annual meeting of the branch held in March a member had come to the meeting with a grievance and asked the union to settle his troubles.' A sharemilker had thought he had been accused at the meeting of ruining a herd and had asked permission ,to come along to the next meeting of the branch and state his case. He had been ruled out of order because they had considered that the Farmers’ Union was not a judicial body; but the Farmers’ Union had called this special meeting and had invited the sharemilker along to the meeting Unqualified Men Dealing with one aspect of the question, Mr Rushton said men with no qualifications had been going round the country accepting jobs as sharemilkers, and with the troubles the farmers had to face to-day such men should not be allowed to go round ruining herds. They should have to produce some sort of bona fides. The personal factor entered into the question, however. Some farmers’ standards were higher than others and some farm-owners were not fit to have men working for them. He hoped that a committee would be set' up as a result of this meeting to work in with the two unions. The sharemilkers and farmers should get together and not antagonise one another.

After Mr Rushton had finished his remarks a sharemilker rose to his feet and said that he had been told that allegations had been made against him at the, annual meeting of the Farmers’ Union by a farmer, his employer, and- he asked the farmer, who was present, to repeat the allegations.

Before the farmer could rise, Mr F. W. Seifert, Morrinsville representative on the Farmers’ Union, said they were getting into an unfortunate position. They all realised the difficulties associated with sharemilking. He had employed 11 different sharemilkers at one time and of these only one had not been satisfactory, and he considered that that was about equal to the proportion of farmers who were satisfactory. The object of the Farmers’ Union was to bring about a better state of affairs between the farmers and sharemilkers. The sharemilkers had their own organd he thought the matter should have been handled between the two unions at a round table conference. £ No Wish to Stifle Meeting

Mr Seifert said he had no wish to stifle the meeting but he moved that the meeting be adjourned.

After the sharemilker had objected that a statement had been made against him at the March meeting and the right of reply should be given to him the motion was put to the meeting.

The motion was' passed with only one dissentient. The motion was passed quickly and some of those pre- 1 sent appeared not to realise exactly what was happening.

After the motion had been passed and Mr Rushton had vacated the chair, a sharemilker rose and said he objected to the meeting being closed. If they wanted better conditions between the farmers and sharemilkers the right of reply must be given. (Hear, hear.) “Work Hand-in-hand” Mr M. Ban, convener of the Sharemilkers’ Union meeting held previously, said he thought the farmers

should get together and hold a roundtable conference at a future date. He moved that a meeting be called to put the relations between farmer and sharemilker on a better basis. Mr Rushton drew the attention of Mr Ban to the fact that the meeting had ,no chairman. The opportunity had been given the meeting to move an amendment to the motion that the meeting be adjourned, but the motion had been passed with only one dissentient.

There were many interjections at this stage. Mr W. Sharp, a vice-president of the Morrinsville Farmers’ Union, said that instead of agreeing on the question they had come to discuss they had heard a quarrel between two men. The sharemilkers and the farmers should be working hand-in-hand. (Applause.) Sharemilker Chairman After discussion, Mr Ban took the chair, and Mr R. McLachlan, a vicepresident of the Farmers’ Union, moved that a meeting of sharemilkers and farmers be held in the Municipal Chambers on May 8.

The motion was passed and the sharemilker said he had not come to the meeting to cause trouble, but an accusation had been made against him and he wished the right of reply. The farmer in question had not attended a meeting of the Farmers’ Union until he had made the alleged accusation. He asked that a statement prepared by him and figures showing the production on the farm ■be read. Grass Produced After considerable discussion the statement was read. The farmer denied that some of the statements were correct and was referring to a statement that the hay was rotten when the sharemilker’s wife opened a bag and lai<i a sward of grass on the platform, alleging that the grass was rotten and they could not feed the stock on it. 'She was proceeding with the argument when a few of the audience walked out and they were quickly followed by the majority, and the meeting concluded with the chairman leaving the chair as the sharemilker was addressing the meeting.