CORRESPONDENCE FARM LABOR.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18192, 13 September 1933, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

FARM LABOR.

(To the Editor of the Herald.) Sir, —Your correspondent “Share asks the world why he cannot get a farm hand; offering, as he does, the stupendous weekly wage of 15s gross. Well, for his edification and for others like him, let ns elucidate this matter. First of all, as this is the beginning of the season, we can safely presume that the man will be paid off in about nine months’ time; that is to say, thirty-nine weeks’ work at 15s, equivalent to £29 ss. Out of this comes wages tax at Is fid per week, £2 18s fid, and a further 15s for unemployment tax, a grand slam of £3 13s 6d, or, to reduce it to its lowest terms, live weeks’ work for no pay. A mere bagatelle. Would “Share Milker’’ care to

say if he is willing to give a rise to a good man, and if he is, why didn’t he ;; say so in his advertisement! Also, is he personally paying the 15s, or is it subsidised, and would he give his man a day off without having to bo asked for it, and would he mind going halfway and paying the service car fare one way, and would he pay a little extra (call it a bonus), during haymaking, and if he kept the man on for the winter, would he do the feeing out bn Sunday if the hand wanted to attend church, and would ho cut the pay during the winter months? Above all, would ho work, on a farm, for five weeks for nowt? Ho would not. Those are a few reasons why “Share Milker” cannot get aufirm hand. I might say in dosing that good men always stick to their good jobs.—Yours, etc.,. FARM HAND. [The correspondent seems to overlook the fact that the wage offered includes keep, which is no reconsider«able item. —Ed.]