SHARE-MILKERS MEET

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 68, Issue 5946, 22 May 1944, Page 3

SHARE-MILKERS MEET

UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS STATEMENT BY HON. F. E. LARK “ The wealthier section of dairy farmers in New Zealand who employ share-milkers to do the work on their farms are putting into their own pockets at the present time about £1,000,000 which should go to the share-milkers. No section of the community has tolerated unsatisfactory conditions as long as the sharemilkers, the method of payment for whose services is such that they become poorer the more they produce. “ It is with deep regret that I report to you that we sat for long hours with men who could only be described as pillars or pyramids, with no intention of shifting, and were unsuccessful in our case to prevent you from being robbed of the recently-awarded 1.21 d per lb butter-fat to pay labour costs. If the share-milkers were half as loyal to each other as the farmers are we would have won the battle long ago.” In the above words the Hon. F. E. Lark, M.L.C., of Auckland, branch secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, addressed between sixty and seventy share-milkers from all parts of Waikato, Te Puke, and Whakatane at a meeting held in Morrinsville recently. As a delegate he reported on the recent conference held in Wellington with representatives of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union to discuss conditions and terms laid down in the 1937 share-milkers' agreement and subsequent amendments. The New Zealand Workers’ Union, to which the share-milkers are affiliated, sought an increase in the third share to 40 per cent and in the half share to 50 per cent.

“ The fifty-fifty man,” Mr Lark went on, “is in the worst position. He has no chance of ever owning land. He is already paying £9 an acre for land, and in fact there is not a share-milker in New Zeaand who is not paying that price for land, and there is not an acre in New Zealand that can pay it. There is talk of a shortage of labour, but one sharemilker is being played off against another. I want to see every farmer in New Zealand put back on his land and made to work it. (Applause.) “ The farmer delegates to the conference would not consider a suggested agreement for the fifty-fifty man, and they now propose leasing the land to tie up the share-milker still further. Our failure was ignominious, but the Union will continue to fight to improve the lot of the share-milk-er. There has never been a strike in the Workers’ Union, and one is not wanted when matters can be settled by negotiation. I appeal to you all to go back to your farms in spite of the fact that they turned you down, and if possible double your production. The Union will continue to fight by constitutional means to secure for you an equitable share of your production.”

Comparing the positions of sharemilker and farmer on a farm of 75 acres milking 50 cows producing 12,500 lb fat and employing one man, Mr Lark quoted the following figures; 1936-7: One third of 12,500 lb fat at Is 4td, £290 15s lid; pigs and calves, £45; gross income, £335 15s lid; less wages one man, £lB2, £153 15s lid; less average expenses, £62 Ils 8d; leaving £9l 4s 3d. 1944-45: One third of 12,500 lb fat at Is 71d, £334 4s Id; pigs and calves, £45; gross income, £379 4s Id; less wages, £253 10s, £125 14s Id; less expenses, £62, Ils 8d; leaving £63 2s sd.

The share-milker thus received £2B Is 7id, £668 8s 2d; add pigs and a net income of £63 2s 5d after paying his milker £253 10s.

1936-37: Two thirds of returns at Is 43d, £5Bl Ils 10d; plus pigs and calves, £45; gross income, £26 Ils 10d. Expenses: 12,500 lb fat at 9d, £463 15s; balance net return from cheque, £157 16s lOd; in addition he gets interest on 50 cows at £lO 10s and 70 acres at £5O, £213 15s; £371 Ils lOd. Net income, 1936-37, £371 Ils lOd. 1944-45: Two thirds of returns at Is 7Jd, £668 8s 2d; add pigs and calves, £45; gross income, £713 8s 2d. Expenses: T.wo thirds of 12,500 lb fat at Is 7id, £668 8s 2d; calves and pigs, £45; less expenses, £468 15s; £244 13s 8d; add interest, etc., £213 15s; £458 8s 2d.

Balance increase from 1937, £B6 16s- 4d. So that while the farmer benefited by £B6 16s 4d, Mr Lark said, the share-milker lost £2B Is lOd. 12,500 lb fat at Is 73d lb, £lOO2 12s Id; two fifths of £lOO2 12s Id, £4Ol Os’lOd; plus calves and pigs, £45; gross income, £446 0s lOd; less wages £253 10s; running expenses £62 Ils 8d; balance net income, £129 19s 2d. 1944-45: £2 10s per week.

Returns under Farmers’ Union offer (increase of 10 per* cent on 33 1-3 'per cent): 12,500 lb fat at Is 71d lb, £lOO2 12s Id; one third, £334 4s Id; add 10 per cent , £33 8s sd, £367 12s 6d; add pigs and calves, £45, £412 12s 6d; less wages, £253 10s, £159 2s 6d; less running expenses, £62 Ils Bd, £96 10s 10d. Answering the Farmers’ Union claim that a free house was to be valued at 30s a week, Mr Lark said that this was offset by the sharemilker having to board the employees for which no allowance was made to the wife. She virtualy kept a board-ing-house charging £1 pei- week for board and lodging. Exclusive of the 1.54 d payment for pigs, farmers should receive 18.79 d per lb butter-fat, Mr Lark continued. Of this, 9.45 d should go to the sharemilker if he did the work in connection with the milking and feeding ol the herd. The extra 1.21 d for labour costs would be paid by the sharemilker, the farmer retaining a twothirds share and paying nothing for wages. This meant that most sharemilkers would receive about 6Jd per lb for doing the work for which the Government allowed 9id per lb. “ As there are about 400,000 cqws miked by share-milkers in New Zealand,” Mr Lark concluded, “ the wealthier farmers are receiving about £1,000,000, which is paid to them under the guaranteed price for work the share-milker does.”