CITY MILK SUPPLY

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21977, 29 December 1936, Page 11

CITY MILK SUPPLY

Cunesponcicms who do uot comply witli our rules set out in the last column 01 our Leader Page will excuse us troin uoticing their letters.

CO THE EIUTOB 0» THE I'RESS Sir. —I was amazed to read in a leading article in "The Press" of last week that you are now supporting the socialisation of the milk supply of this city—the more so as you so strenuously opposed it when a Labour council attempted to introduce it some few years ago. A very bitter strife was engendered then, as some hundred small farmers saw the prospects of their homes being lost—their suburban farms depreciating in value to the value of land 30 miles out—in short, their life's savings and their living being taken away. Through this controversy some five councillors lost their seats as the public definitely showed they were against cooked milk. You make a passing mention that the trade is peeking a fixed price as if the subject were not worth any consideration. Now. while not seeking your sympathy I should like to place a few facts before you. CI) The small producer-vendor selling, say, 25 to 30 gallons a day works at least 80 hour.s a week, (la) The average householder served works 40 hours a week. (2) The average producer-vendor, after providing farm expenses, interest, depreciation, and delivery expenses would not clear £3 a week for 80 hours. (2a) The average householder would clear £4 10s for 40 hours. (3) The average producer-vendor has no weekly holidays whatever, and these last four years no yearly holiday, but has been up against a continual day in, day out grind. (3a) The average householder served gets at least 114 days off per annum to a milkman's nil. The milkman works about 4160 hours a year to supply the householder who works 2000 hours a year, and when he claims a fixed living price in line with the householders' fixed living wage and the fixed farm labour costs, etc., you take up the cudgels of the monopolists. The trade has asked the council to confer with it on the subject of better conditions all round. The council's answer to this request seems to be the setting up of a committee of investigation, with practically prearranged findings—no conference with the trade, however, just the statement about pasteurisation, or in other words men sitting in assured positions point to the poor milkman and say "Take from him even those things that he seemeth to have." With regard to the proposed pasteurisation of milk as advocated by some of the more learned members of the council, this treatment of milk is nearly useless except in very large cities where the source of supply is too distant to send it in fresh. However, there is an-arsenal of munitions to fire against the cooking of milk, whilst it caa be delivered fresh as in Christchurch, but this must be reserved until the battle is in array.— Yours, etc.. STARVING COCKIE. | December 28. 1936. I Our correspondent has failed to distinguish the difference between socialisation and rationalisation, which we advocated. We said, inter alia, "The community is being asked to guarantee producers and vendors of milk a reasonable living; in return it is entitled to stipulate that it shall be provided with an abundant supply of milk which is safe for consumption." If that is socialisation, we plead guilty—Ed.. "The Press."!