A Threshing Mill Dispute.

Otago Witness, Issue 2055, 13 July 1893, Page 22

A Threshing Mill Dispute.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,— l observe that in ft recent issue your Dunback correspondent accuses me of sending you some notes that were not altogether in accordance with facts. For his information and also for that of the public interested, I may say that he has not taken the right view of what did happen. My_ information I got from the farmer and one union man, and also the non-union man, who I have no hesitation in saying are prepared to swear. to what took place. The farmer only wanted to have two men on the straw, as it was not wanted to be built, so the third man was not required; hence the strike. Just fancy union men wanting to have three men to keep the straw clear of the elevators, and have the unfortunate farmer pay a man or two 9d an hour for looking at one another. Your correspondent has been wrongly informed, as the farmer told the men that he would not require this third man before the mill was drawn in. Another thing, all the union men never prepared to go homeonly about half of them did so, and the farmer never asked them to come back, but told them distinctly that if they would not start as he wished, and at once, they could pull out and he would have no difficulty in getting another mill. The men knew what was what ; they got the mill set, and every man was at his post minus the third straw man (who had already gone home) ; the mill was started, and as it was a made-up affair they, with one exception, struck, and as I said before without any justification. About two hours of a grand day was frittered away in useless argument when the strikers actually gave in. To their shame be it said, they behaved in a cowardly manner to the non-unionist, but he stuck to his< work till the mill finished at the place, and it is wronu to say that he left the mill being afraid of the strikers, as he had engaged for other work long before the strike occurred. I hear he has since left the district. lam sorry to take up so much space on what is practically a local matter, but as the two versions are so conflicting they require some explanation. It is pretty well admitted all over this district that there will have to be a change as far as this threshing work is concerned. At present the millowner is paid by the hour and found. He gets a gang of men' at the start ofjthe season, and, as was admitted in the late strike, as the millowner did not pay them, he could not interfere, and as in the present case the farmer, who has to pay the piper, and that at 9d an hour and found with five meals a day, dare not interfere. In the case referred to the farmer did speak put, and be deserves credit for doing so. He said 4 to them that he would not submit to the boycott, and that as he had to pay the money he had a right to say how many men were required. It would be much better for all hands, millowners, farmers, and workmen, to let the threshing by the bushel, and the millowner to find men and everything, and be responsible for the class of workmen kept. If a millowner cannot manage the men, then it must be admitted that he has sadly mistaken his calling. As you^ are aware, I have for years been your trusted correspondent, and I merely say in selfdefence that I always takf special care that I send you the facts of everything as far as can be gathered, and I have no fear \but that I have the proper story in this case even if, as some seem to think, your humble servant being a practical f armef is sometimes biassed. Shag Valley Correspondent. Shag Valley, July 10.