Conditions of Farm Labour

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 93, 14 January 1936, Page 11

Conditions of Farm Labour

Sir,—As a farm hand with experience on all sorts of farms, I have had great pleasure in reading letters in your paper on the subject of the conditions of farm labour. There is no doubt that it is a question that has been long overdue. If wages and the conditions under which we have to work were better not only we but the farmers and the whole country would benefit. Under present conditions farm work is the Inst job I should wish a son of mine to take on. We know that farmers have been up against it, but even when prices were good a farm hand in nine cases out of ten wasn’t treated any better. A good man doesn’t mind the hard work; no one can make farm work easy; but what we want is better houses, a set day off, say, once a month, and an annual holiday on full pay. The wages should be fixed. Why should one man, because he is a good farmer and a just man, pay £3 per week, and another man -with the same class of land and perhaps twice as much of it, pay only £2 per week to a married man, and expect the same amount of work done? Anyone who doubts what has been said about the conditions a farm hand has to work under can have my name and address, and I will give him every farmer's name I have worked for since 1912, when I started work on a farm as a boy of 14 years. They will wonder why I have stuck to farm work. The only reason is, I have lived, like many others, in the hope of having a farm of my own. —I am, etc., FARM HAND.

Sir,—"Equity” opened this discussion with the sweeping statement that “the farmers had allowed a system of nearslavery (re wages and conditions of labour) to prevail independent of the profits made.” While admitting this as it applied to the squatter and station-holder and conditions generally, I challenged the statement of profits as applied to thousands of small dairy-farmers. It is now conceded that owing to speculation and fluctuations, the big butter prices quoted by “Equity” are not a true index to factory pay-out for butterfat. A concrete exampig was quoted by me in my last letter, of gambling with out dairy produce that had cost the farmers of New Zealand £152,600. It also seems to be accepted that the total pay-out for butterfat for the last two seasons was about 9d. per pound (and that the cost of production was approximately 10-Jd. per pound of butterfat. Yet “Equity” now reverts to the statement that ‘‘even if the small farmer did not obtain all the advantages when the prices rose to 127/-, we, the New Zealand consumers, had the privilege of paying 1/5 per pound for butter and. the factories had the privilege of paying out. additional bonuses at.the expense of the local community.” Then "Equity” objects when I accuse him of ambiguity that leads nowhere. Is this a case of a person being convinced against his will? As a student of economics, “Equity” should know that the short-sighted policy of attempting to exploit the consumer only results in decreased consumption 'and so defeats its own end. Besides, as only about 16 per cent, of the butter manufactured is consumed in New Zealand it should be obvious that any manipulation of prices on that percentage cannot result in big bonuses. That was mostly election and prosperity talk. I am sorry to say the “appalling cases” of women and child drudgery on New Zealand dairy-farms are emphatically not, as suggested by “Equity,” “very limited in number,” and would not be tolerated in the cities or any other industry. However, I hope “Equity” is a better prophet than authority on dairying’ matters and that things are going to improve for all who labour on the land.—l am,. etc., RATIONAL. Dalefield, January 9.

Sir, —One sees such a lot of exaggerated reports about conditions on farms, that I think it would be’a good thing for me to write my experience. I have just returned from the Waikato, where I saw’ the cottage of a married couple and one child; it consisted of four rooms, matchlined and oiled, a splepdid stove, electric light and bath room with hot and cold water installed; a flower garden, including vegetables and fruit trees.

Tiie farm hand had the same meals as the employer and his wife (cream included). His w’hare (quite a decent one) was furnished with cupboards for his clothes. . Hie white shirts were washed and ironed also. It seems a shame for people to be always trying to discourage young people, when agriculture is a vital necessity to New Zealand; men are so scarce, and the farmers so hard up. ’ Let us hope the Party are going to improve matters I ~ Thanking you in anticipation for your space.—l am, etc., NOT A GROUSER. Carterton, January S.

Sir, —Just a few lines touching on the promise that has been given to adopt shorter working hours, both for men and women. It is just about time something was done for the poor unfortunate women who have to work hard on farms, as they are not getting that which they rightly deserve. It is a common thing for them to work 16 hours daily, Sunday included. At the present time you will find them in the cowshed at four o’clock in the morning and trying to a do a hundred and one jobs on the farm during the day, cooking for harvesters, shearers, haymakers and Weeders, driving tractors, and horses for hay lifts, raking and sweeping, and all manual labour on the farm.

I plead that something will be done to put an end to this sweating of women labour on farms, as it is no credit to our country. Is it not n fact that practically half the butter'and cheese that is produced in New Zealand is produced by child and woman labour? The conditions under which they work are deplorable, especially when you see young families around them. These women are working over 100 hours a week, and there has got to be no lost time.—l am, etc., H. PRESTON.