THE FARMERS' UNION AND LABOR.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 60, 3 May 1912, Page 14

THE FARMERS' UNION AND LABOR.

Sir,—l noto with regret that you make an attack on tho Farmers' Union, as also does Mr. E. Kennedy. Now, I consider you are both wrong. Bad feeling is not going to regenerate society, nor are misinformed statements. Please allow mo, as tho man who started the Farmers' Union, to say a littlo. I yield to no one in tho desiro to see society regenerated and Labor get its just reward. Although a farmer, I have always supported Labor unions. I believe in ' unionism, co-operation—honco the Farmers' Union. Now, I was present at tho meeting of the Farmers' Union at Clcvcdon, when tho question of labor troubles in Auckland came up. "We all_ considered the workers had a perfect right to get as much as they could for their commodity—labor. You must remember, however, that farmers also want to make as much as possible, too; and to that end it was decided, if farmers were crippled for want of manure or farm implements, that thoso who chose could go and help unload those articles —no moro. It was also suggested that manure should not be allowed in bags of moro than ono hundredweight-, _ {anything heavier being a useless stnin on labor. None of those present said he would lift a little finger at strike-breaking, although all considered striking a bad policy. Bombay branch also said the same. The Clevetlon branch _of tho Farmers' Union considered striking as an out-of-date, wasteful and barbarous method of securing any wage improvement when there wero better agencies. Tho Farmers*] Union < Conference in May has a remit from its executive to take steps to try and work with the Labor Unions. They bath havo tho same objective—tho organisation and systcmi.sation of commerce and society. Thero is also a remit to nationalise the farming industry. Tho main difference is that wo want to wort on scientific and systematic lines, whereas you people—or your to think

the antiquated, unsystematic styles—! strikes —tlie better way. ! Furthermore, I would like to point out to you: (1) That a lot of workers Io not approve of your methods, l>ecm.se they have told mo so, therefore "pull the' beam," etc.; (2) that in a regenerated or revolutionised society, fa'-mors will be as much needed as now, and you aro more likely to win them over to your side by kindly methods than by abuso. Fortunately, they do not tako any notico of tho abuse, nor hold any ill-feeling because of it> but tlie generality of them liko a "square deal."—Yours, etc., ' * ' SAM A. BROWNE. Glevcdon, Auckland.