FARMERS MEET SHAREMILKERS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume 52, Issue 3263, 14 May 1943, Page 3

FARMERS MEET SHAREMILKERS

UNIONS CONFER

PROBLEMS DISCUSSED SECOND MEETING IN VIEW FRIENDLY UNDERSTANDING Pursuant to a meeting held recently in Morrinsville between sharemilkers and farmers, another meeting was convened between these two bodies on Saturday evening in the Morrinsville Borough Council Chambers. The ob- , jects of the meeting were to hold a “round-table” discussion between representatives of the . Farmers’ and Sharemilkers’ Unions, in order that better understanding might be reached between them regarding the present conditions .under which many sharemilkers have to work, and the problems which beset many farmers engaging sharemilkers on their property.

With this in view the following representatives were chosen by these two unions from the Morrinsville, Matamata and Te Awamutu districts: Messrs W. A. Rushton (Morrinsville), M. Ban (Morrinsville), D. T. Davies (Morrinsville), D. T. Davies (Morrinsville), F. W. Seifert (Morrinsville), W. Cavanagh (Te Awamutu), R. N. Rodgers (Matamata), . A. A. Ne-eve (Matamata), F. E. Hughes (Matamata), J. H. Neems (Matamata,) K. K. Balsom (Matamata), G. Collins (Morrinsville), J. Hansen (Morrinsville), E. C. Linton (Morrinsville), W. Mcllwaine f Morrinsville and A. J- Ward (Morrinsville). At the commencement of the meeting Mr W. A. Rushton was elected to

the chair, whereupon he explained the meeting’s purpose and proposed a free discussion. Friendly Understanding Throughout the meeting the speakers quite frankly from their different points of view, but it was also made quite clear by, each member that what was said was not spoken with any intent to be aggressive, 01 with any ill-feeling. The discussion began and ended with that undeistanding antj thereby many angles of the existing situation between the two unions were presented and discussed with a view to improvement. Mr Rushton pointed out to the meeting that abiding by the decision made at the previous meeting its members were present as delegates from their various unions and to report back to them from this discussion. Therefore they were not in a position to pass any resolutions. This was understood and the discussion progressed. The subjects covered, both widely and briefly were (1) the share received by the sharemilker of the extra 2d' per lb. for butterfat which had been promised in lieu of pigs, over and above butter; (2) the guaranteed price for butter and pigs; (3) the change-over from butter to cheese as it affected the two parties; (4) cull cows; (5) living conditions; (6) the compilation and execution of the clauses of the sharemilkers’ agreement.

As the discussion developed it was realised by both parties that there were many doubtful points under discussion about which they could make no definite statements unless they first received legal advice. This hindered the discussion in some ways, but the air was cleared generally on several scores.

To begin with subject (1), a lengthy address was given by Mr W. Cavan-

agh, of Te Awamutu, upon the 2d per lb. promised by the Minister of Marketing, who was met by the sharemilkers in Cambridge in 1937. Mr Cavanagh was speaking from the points of view of both sides as he had been a sharemilker and was now a landowner employing sharemilkers. He had been asked by the sharemilkers in his district to* act as their representative. It was his contention that the sharemilker was not getting a fair deal from the majority of farmers supplying There were not many farmers who were giving their sharemilkers half of that promised 2d to which they were entitled; instead they were receiving one-third. “The sharemilker is as dependent upon the guaranteed price for butter and pigs as the farmer,” stated Mi G. Collins, chairman of the Morrinsville branch of the .Sharemilkers’ Union, “but it is only through co-opera-tion of the two. that a stronger front can be presented.” Difference of opinion would' always arise, he understood.

“No difference of opinion about getting one price for butterfat,” stated Mr Rushton.

It was agreed that the sharemilker could not expect to get-anything from the farmer if the latter did not receive any benefit first.

Detrimental to County

Mr Collins continued that the annual changes of sharemilkers from farm to farm added greatly to the detriment of the country. It caused a great loss through capital outlay of shedding, etc., and the getting used to a new herd for the sharemilker. Loss was also incurred' to the farmer as it was seldom that- one sharem.ilker worked exactly the same as the previous man.

In pointing out few of the prob(Continued in next column)

lems which confronted each side, so causing this continual change, he mentioned the misunderstandings which often existed between the farmer and sharemilker; the provision of poor housing; the drawing up of a sharemilking agreement; and better conditions for women working in the shed. (Differences which often arose between sharemilker and farmer could be overcome by a quiet, commonsense discussion on the matter. The speaker realised that some sharemilkers did not treat a farmer’s house with proper care, but very often more comfortable living quarters could be provided.

A “go ahead” man would continually move on in order to better his position, he maintained. If conditions on the farm were satisfactory he would not moVe.

He urged that more care should be taken in the drawing-up of an agreement. There was a need to consult the Government sharemilker’s agreement so that there should be nothing in it to the detriment of the' sharemilker. If such a thing should happen, even if the sharemilker had signed the agreement, the offending clauses would be null and void. . Farmer of the Future It was realised by the farmer delegates that such conditions as those mentioned were in existence. In their opinion, the sharemilker of to-day was the farmer of the future. He should be given every assistance, but they considered that it was not the average farmei' who would not co-operate with his sharemilker. It was only a certain section whose motives they had to combat. ''

Speaking to the meeting, Mr F. W. Seifert said he had listened to Mr Collins and realised that there were many truths in what he said. He did not think that the sharemilker was asking for any drastic changes. They were entitled to good living conditions but he considered that if there existed a system by which both sides could place -their “cards on the table” and have their problems settled, a better understanding would be arrived at. The sharemilker was to-morrow’s farmer, he agreed. He knew of six men who- had passed through his hands and were now landowners.

In discussing the way in which the sharemilker’s agreement had come into being, Mr R. N. Rodgers, sharemilker, Of Matamata, stated that about 22 representatives from the North Island and one from the South Island, where there were far fewer sharemiikers, had met the farmers

and that every clause in the agreement to-day had been proposed to the farmers by the sharemiikers themselves. Cull Co,ws , An important point which was launched by Mr Rogers and taken up strongly and backed by the delegates of both sides was that of cull cows. Mr Rodgers strongly urged that every cull cow should be branded clearly as such. Some assurance should be made that she didn’t go back into the herd. Not only was it unfair, to the sharemilker for the farmer to give him a herd of cull cows, or culls in the majority, but it was also detrimental to the farmer and the standard of dairy farming in New Zealand. “Every farmer who employs a sharemilker should test his herd each season and set a standard of production for each cow, say, 2901 b. at her second calf. If she could not do that she should be nominated as a cull,” stated Mr J. H. Neems, of Matamata. “This might be drastic to some farmers but it would go a long way to raising the standard of herds in New Zealand.”

Mr D. T. Davies: If those steps were taken this year, 75 per cent, of the cows would- be culled. Difficulties In Way

Seeking to show the fallibility of this suggestion, a member related the following experience he once had. He had % t ur,ne d ou t a cow as being unsound. The next season it was springing and subsequently its production figures increased. The following year a further increase was shown. Therefore, it would be difficult to nominate a .cow as a cull on production figures only. That a real danger to New Zealand herds and farmers- might exist in dishonest farmers and stock dealers getting their heads together and keeping a cull cow from being branded was the opinion of the meeting. That might mean that cull cows could be turned out to graze, brought in as springers, and sold as sound cows. It might be that sharemiikers were expected to produce good returns when all they had in- their herds was cull cows. A cheap outlay for the farmer and hard work for the sharemilker.

“The farmers have to keep pressing for better conditions or the sharemilker can’t hope to get it from the farmer,” said Mr Seifert. The k rest of the meeting was continued along general discussion lines, touching on matters concerning the replacement of cows in a sharemilker’s herd, payment for haymaking, cartage of whey to the factory and

the guarantee of laboui’ by .the sharemilker, etc.

Breaking about terms contained in the sharemilking agreement, Mr Neems said that too many farmers were inclined to regard the agreement as the maximum.

“Whereas it is not really; it is the minimum,” said Mr Rushton. , ’ Here the meeting came to a conclusion with the chairman saying that perhaps the cause of a lot of the trouble was the deficiency of qualified labour. So many ex-painters, carpenters, etc;, who had never milked since childhood were applying for sharemilker’s jobs. He agreed that the request which had been made at the meeting for a committee to be set up to .handle sharemilkers’ and farmers’ troubles, was necessary, but asked that the delegates report back to their respective unions before further steps be taken.

He added that the Farmers’ Union would be pleased to meet and discuss with the Sharemiikers’ Union on their problems at any time. On behalf of the sharemilkers, Mr Collins thanked the Farmers’ Union for allowing the meeting, saying he felt that a lot of good’ would result out of it and any more which would be held.