FARMERS’ UNION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19959, 17 November 1934, Page 4

FARMERS’ UNION

SOUTH CANTERBURY EXECUTIVE MONTHLY MEETING The monthly meeting of the South Canterbury Executive of the Farmers’ Union was held yesterday. Present— Messrs A. W. Barnett (chairman). P. R. Talbot, A. F. Campbell, J. C. Hay, C. Ley, J. J. Dickson, J. Trotter, B. E. Evans. J. J. Hall, A. J. Davey, J. Stowell. W. Buchan, C. H. Whatman, A. Bisdee, J. McKercher, F. Charles, and L. V. Talbot. Loss on Grain Sacks. Reporting in regard to the loss on grain sacks. Mr Barnett gave figures used when the effect of the proposed wheat duties was being discussed with the Prime Minister. He said that the value of flour worked back to the price of wheat, f.o.b. was £l3 7s. The figures at South Island ports were—2ooolb. of flour, £l3 7s; 7001 b. of offal £1 10s; total £l4 17s. Less 23 per cent, discount, 7/6, leaving £l4 9s 6d. The conversion cost, including the cost of sacks, was 3/9 and the gain on sacks weighed in was 5/-, leaving £ll 5s 6d available for wheat. Mr Barnett went on to say that 47 bushels at £ll 5s 6d was equal to 4/91 f.0.b., which 'was equal to 4/5 on trucks, and this was the average price for all varieties over all the season. It would be noted that in each case the cost of the sacks was included as part of the cost, and if the price paid for sacks was increased, it would decrease the amount available for wheat, and consequently its price, and vice versa, if the price of sacks was reduced. Many farmers thought that they only lost the difference between what they paid for sacks and what millers paid for the sacks, but this was a mistake. The farmer really lost the whole cost of the sack. Marking of Pigs. At tne last meeting it was decided to write to the Stock Auctioneers’ Association asking that there be a distinguishing mark on pigs sold so as to ; avoid mistakes. A reply was received from the Association referring the Union to the conditions of sale at all yards, which. ! placed the onus on the purchaser to j look after his purchases. Members considered the reply unsatisfactory, stating that the Stock Auctioneers were avoiding their responsibility. It was pointed out that no trouble was experienced at Waimate and Timaru. and there was no reason why sales could not be handled in a similar manner at Temuka and Pleasant Point. It was decided to reply stating that the Union considered the reply unsatisfactory. and asking the Association to consider the matter with a view to I making more satisfactory arrangements. Proposed Pig Levy. A circular from the Dominion secretary regarding a levy on all pigs killed for the purpose of making available to all breeders increased recordings and instruction facilities, was referred to the Temuka branch for consideration. Employment of Youths. The Timaru Unemployment Committee writing in reference to the employment of youths, said that the matter had been exercising the mind of the committee for some time, and the committee, through the Government Labour Bureau, was prepared to co-operate to the fullest extent in placing suitable youths on farms. If the members of the Union. after perusing the usual channels, were not suited, they would be advised to approach the Labour Bureau. Mr Evans said that the matter had been discussed by the Timaru-St. Andrews branch and the secretary had said that he could not get sufficient youths for the positions offering, providing they could milk. It was decided to forward a copy or the letter to the various branches. Threshing Charges. The following remits were forwarded by the Timaru-St. Andrews branch:— (1) “That this Branch expresses its strong disapproval of the action of the South Canterbury millowners in agreeing in Conciliation Council to an increase of threshing mill workers’ wages at a time when farmers are still in serious financial difficulties.” <2> •That in face of the frequent representations with reference to mill workers’ wages, made by the Farmers Union to the South Canterbuiy Threshing Mill Owners’ Association having been disregarded, this Branch views with alarm the possible increase in threshing charges as a direct result. This Branch considers that for the protection of farmers’ interests in this locality, the Provincial Executive be urged to request the Government to amend the Arbitration Act in order to give the right of appearance in Arbitration and Conciliation Court to vitally interested third parties.” The remits were moved by Mr Evans, who said that they practically spoke for themselves. In seconding the remits, Mr Talbot said two years ago, when an award was framed, the Threshing Mill Owners’ Union permitted representatives of the Union to discuss matters with them, but on this occasion the mill-owners went ahead on their own, and did not consult the Union. He thought there should be an amendment to the Act to permit of the farmers, who were a vitally interested third party, to have some say in the matter. ~

Mr Hay said that he would like to see the second remit altered by the deletion of the words “in this locality.” Mr Campbell said that he thought the mill-owners should be asked for an explanation as to vrliy the farmers were not consulted. It was quite evident that the mill-owners had put up a fight, for the employees’ demands had been much greater than what the owners had agreed to. If possible, the whole matter should be settled harmoniously. It was not right that the Union should take up a hostile attitude, without an explanation. Mr Hay thought they should oppose the principle of increases generally without the farmers first being consulted. Mr Buchan said that he took it that the owners were going to pass the increase of 13d on. Of the three parties interested, the mill-owner, the farmer and the worker, the mill-owner came out on top every time. It seemed to him that in the long run, the millowner would kill the goose that laid the golden egg, for farmers would make use of the head harvester. It was agreed after further discussion to delete the first remit and the second one w’as carried with the deletion of the words "in this locality.” It was also decided to ask the Millowners’ Union why the farmers were not consulted before an increase w r as agreed to.