THE FARMERS' UNION AND THE CITY UNIONIST. Why Not a "Farm Hands' Union"?

Free Lance, Volume III, Issue 152, 30 May 1903, Page 8

THE FARMERS' UNION AND THE CITY UNIONIST. Why Not a "Farm Hands' Union"?

THE Farmers' Union is not a political organisation. It purports to be an association formed of particles of the "backbone of the eountiy," joined in indissoluble unity, to watch the interests of themselves. And r very good line, too, don't you think ° We suppose the average man has noticed the extraordinary prevalence of societies and associations m New Zealand, any one of which, should the entire Government go out for a walk, and forget to come back, could assume the ribbons, and drive the old chariot through the narrowest gate without knocking the paint off the wheel hubs. * * * Every second man in New ZeaJand knows more about labour and politics

than anybody else, and farmers are only mem, anyhow. Another thing you have noticed is that farmers' "hands" haven't got any union. While their bosses- are away conferring, they are at home milking the cow in order to buy the said farmer a new white shirt to go to the next conference in. You have further noticed that unionism very lightly concerns the agricultural worker— that it is, in fact, a dead letter away from towns. * • If it doesn't concern the farm worker, it doesn't concern the farmer, and one would conclude that a farmer whobelongs to a union, which is not political, would not think of worrying about the work or working hours of a city worker. But, that the farmer has his eye on the town worker is very evident by a motion of a representative ?t the Wellington Provincial Conference, at New Plymouth, recently held. Here is the motion —"That it is unfair to the general community, and opposed to the free and liberal principles of the British nation, that preference should, by Act of Parliament, be made compulsory to any section of men, whether unionists or not." So politics does not enter mto the discussions of the Farmers' Union after all? Now, what is to prevent the enlightened body of farm hands banding together, and taking their case- before the Arbitration Court, and the less enlightened farm hands from having nothing to do with it, and sharing the privileges brought about by the union of their fellow workers? The reason is that the conditions of farm service are such that there are extremely few men who willingly make a permanent occupation of it. The hardships the farmer who moved that motion 1 sees in, the proposal to give compulsory preference to unionists can be avoided by a simple process. * * ♦ The non-unionist, who, up to now, has shared the privileges brought about and paid for by the unionists, has merely to manfully decide to share the expense as well as the advantages. The hardship, if any, is borne by the unionist, who, for his trouble, may be ousted by a man who disdains the system that has brought added wealth to the worker. To talk about the liberty of the subject, the subject being a non-union-ist, is mere trash. The liberty of the strong, self-reliant man is jeopardised by the thriftless person whose policy is entirely selfish. If farmers intend taking such an interest in the welfare of the workers in the cities, let them extend their sympathies to the workers m the country, who are more in need! of it.