THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10065, 12 August 1910, Page 6

THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

(To the Editor). Sir,—With your kind permission, I will reply to the letters of Messrs McLeoJ and Abbott, re the above cat'c-r. Taking Mr Mcleod's first, he HH'jti "8s par day. without board, is nearer the mark for the average manual labourer thati 10s." So much the better for my comparison. The sluwest shearer, who is physically fit, has learned how to handle his sheep correctly, and keep his tools in proper order, can at least earn 18s per day, while the most expert can earn ss much as 45i and found, fed six times a day at that. Would you, sir. kindly print, in good large type, so that the public can see it the comparison as, under— Average day's pay for manual la baur. no board, Bs. Lowes pay for shearer, six meals and 18s. Highest pay for shearer, six meals and 455.

Now you great intelligent British public, will you tell me if the shearer ought to complain of his lot? Mr McLeod says he is a shearer of twenty-four years'standing. This is the very beat proof he could give us that the work has been well paid and the treatment good, or he would have quitted the game long ago. My comparison re the work extending over nine months instead of three and its result he drops very quickly. Too much fact there, not conjecture, as he states. Again, Mr McLeod says, "the shearers, do not wish to impose a tax on the wool industry that it cannot afford to bear." So it is a tax, then, that they are trying to levy;, not compensation for work done! This is a iir:w thing, a union collecting a tax. a is correct though, one can see by the shearers' earnings it is a tax.. In concluding with Mr McLeod, I wouli say it is not a matter of my not wishing to go into details. 1 will give him plenty of details if he wishes it, and you, sir, will be good enough to give me space, In reply to Mr Abbott, asking me to give himself and the public my correct baptismal appellation, I must decline to oblige nun. We ara not on an equal footiig in this. He is a paid secretary or a union, and 1 it is an advantage t3 him to ± \ c ni-s name in print, while on my p*ri 1 might lose in more ways than one by signing mine. Above and beyond it all, I do not admire a man who While on the subject, why does not E. WilmoreAbhott get a hyphen in his pabtismal appellation somewhere, and add the finishing touch of laneyness to it. However, names cannot alter facts, and I have given the public some that neither Mr Abbott nor Mr McLeod can dispute. It is a matter of whether the shearers or the farmers have a grievance. On behalf of the latter, t am quite willing to fight the subject out by correspondence under good old name of "Bush" only. Again thanking you for your valuable space, I am, etc, "BUSH."