FARM LABOURERS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11649, 31 July 1903, Page 5

FARM LABOURERS.

TO THU EDITOR Ot TUB PRESS. Sir.—lt is encouraging to find that a movement is on foot to form a Farm Labourers* Union ; it is surprising that they have delayed so long in making the move. The wages paid to the farm labourer in! New Zeahmd are very low. For a week of i between GO and 90 hours he receives ono I pound, and the food which he gets is not | ..i a kind which he could do a day's work | on. His board does not cost the farmer | more than 6.s to 6s 6d per week. Both ;h« station owners and farmers consul, r j butter a luxury, whioh should not he given to working men. They also also consider sweet milk a luxury, for they t-a-k----eaiv to skim it before it. reaehe.s the wiiaiv. As a rule, when the farmer kilh a, sheep he lakes tho best cuts ol" it for his own table. It is the sanio on stations, but very often a fat. sheep is killed for the farmer's i own table. The practice i.- followed on j some of the stations, and the lean sheep j are killed for the wlinre, so with lean iinii- : ton, no butter, and skimmed milk the j prospect of the working mau growing j fat and jolly is a bit remote. 1 have known , young pigs and calves to get the sweet ; milk direct from the cows, while the work- ; ing man got the skimmed milk. In truth. ; the black slaves in many instances were . better cared for; their owners had enough . brains to know that it was to their in- | terest to feed and house them well, for by i doing so they could get more work out of ; them, but neither station owner- nar th- i farmers can see it iv that light in New ' Zealand. They speak about the scarcity of [ farm labourers, it follows a* a rule that I where labour is scarce wages are high. [ and the other conditions are equally good, j but supposing that there were a surplus of farm labourers one can picture to himself the wages which the farmer would pay, and the treatment which he would deal out to his labourer. It- is only reasonable to | think that if the supply was greater than j the demand they would be offering 10s. j 12s, or 15s per week, and the food would i not be likely to increase in quantity or im- j prove in quality. A farm labourer re- I oeives £1 per week, out of that he spends | one shilling on butter, and perhaps od on i a tin of jam ; that would bring his wages down to 18s 6d per week, in many in- j stances both on stations and farms. Tbo [ tea is of a most inferior brand, not good j to drink, and as a result I havo know i | men to buy cocoa, which would run into J another shilling or Is 6d por week, which. | would reduce their wages to 17-j per week, , of between 80 and DO hour". When every I thing is taken into consideration New . Zealand is not the paradi: c of the working I man. —Yours, etc., FARM LABOURER.

TO THE KDITOR OT THE ."BESS. ; Sir, —Will you kindly allow me space to ; thank your correspondent, Mr J. A. Mc- ! Cullough for the text be liar, given us to ; ponder over. In conjunction with many ; other farm labourers, I feW that we are as j sheep without a shepherd. I Apropos of the foregoing, I was re- { cently working on a farm when a. clergy- j man called and held Divine service in j the front room, for tho lady and gentleman . of the house—the only woman domestic j was not a-ked to attend, aud not a single j worker on the estate was spoken to*"by the j rev. gentleman. Will you kindly inform mo if the same , God Is available to the employee as to the j employer. —Yours, etc., I W. F. APLIM. j Christchurch, 29th July, 1903.

TO TH- EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I should liko to sny a few word. | with reference to the scarcity of labour, I complained of by the Farmers' Union. j Mr Wilson is entirely at fault- when ■ he blames the Government for employing ; the labour. In 1901, 3124 men were cm- i ployed by the Labour Department, whereas "in 1902 only 1830 were so employed. Not one of the farmers gave any idea of i the number of men require, nor did I they give uny guarantee that they will sup- | ply them with constant work. Should men I be imported, the farmers liave absolutely I no guarantee, that these men would be:! content to stop with them, when they s<se> ; the-" stete of labour here. And in all pro- j h-ibility the children of these men would | be taught some trade, when they would • ettrn rnoro and have much rnoro. freedom.! so in a few years at least, things would ; be just as bad as they arc now. I Mr Leadley made a rather remarkable j suuement when he said that the export*. ■ might be increassd by one-ihird by the j introduction of farm labourers. In look- j ing back to tho year 18-8, when the iium- I ber of unemployed was so great that men ; wero put to dig the river banks, the ana under cultivation was 1,616,578 acres. In ISO 2it was 1,503,313 acres, or a decrease in cultivation of 104,256 acres. But while tlie area under cultivation has decreased, the number of stock raised for the --lino period ha-si increased by 10,728,154 head, and the exports greatly increased. This being the case, the farmers must have, made precious little use of their time in 1893 when labour was both cheap and plentiful. I consider Mr Buckland's statement is a libel on the youth of the colony, and I j liave no doubt it will be treated as such. ! The colonial youth can hold his own, J with his own class, from the labourer to j the professor, anywhere in the world. ! Several of the farmers have slated that J the cause of men leaving the country is ; poor pay, yet they make no attempt to j remedy the matter. They simply appeal to ] tlie Premier, like a lot of children would i to their mother. A short time ago a correspondent gave a comparison of the wages | earned by different trades and labour, and ! neither Mr Leadley or his friends attempted , to disprove them. A case of men leaving I the country came under my notioo last I month. Three ploughmen (one of whom I know to be a first-class man) whom I met, told me that "they had had enough -•f the country," and they were endeavouring to obtain work in town. On asking their reason for leaving the country, in each case the answer was the same—long hours and poor pay. When the fanners take enough interest in the welfare of their men to see that they have tlie comforts of a home and are better paid, then the exodus will stop.— Yours, etc., EX-FARM HAND