PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 195, Issue 22448, 8 September 1944, Page 4

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS SHARE-MILKER’S CASE (To the Editor) Sir, —Recently in your columns strong criticism has been launched by Farmers’ Union and South Auckland Dairy Association members of the movement by share-milkers to improve the conditions and terms under which they work. Upon reading some reports the public would be led to believe the share-milkers have no case and were being stirred up by a bunch of malcontents. Let us examine the position. Take a herd of 100 cows, base the average at 2401 b butter-fat and at this (not last) season’s price of Is 6d per lb butterfat the returns will be £IBOO, the share-milker receiving £6OO. To this add the liberal estimate of (£ of £300) for pigs and calves and the share-milker’s total is £750. Some would say the picture looks well but let us go further and let the farmer dispense with the sharemilker and pay the present ruling slightly-above-award wages for two men, one boy or youth and a house-keeper, or wife of one of the milkers at housekeeper’s wages. Two men at £4 a week, plus £1 for keep, would cost £SOO. One youth at £3, plus keep, £2OO, and the house-keeper or milker’s wife £l5O, bringing the total, based upon ordinary wages, to £BSO, or £IOO more than the sum for which the share-milker is expected to render even more service. No allowance has been made for the raising of a family—or do farmers consider j share-milkers have no right to families? I have been prompted to write this letter as the result of seeing in your columns where Mr Harbutt. of Cambridge, a member of the South Auckland Dairy Association, claimed that to give the share-milker more, or as shown above, even award wages would ruin the dairy industry. I challenge Mr Harbutt or any one else of like mind to state through your columns in answer to my statements why a farmer cannot exist upon the other £I3OO .which has so far been his allotted share.. Let him briefly explain where this money must needs be spent and let the general public judge the soundness of the sharemilkers’ case.—-I am, etc., INTERESTED. BOROUGH ENGINEER (To the Editor) Sir, —Surely the position that Hamilton has got itself into is unique. After futile attempts on the part of the council to get those concerned to work amicably, the engineer was dismissed, the council being practically evenly divided on the matter. Those opposed to the dismissal considered that an injustice had been done and threatened that they would not rest content until the engineer had been reinstated and that they would make the matter an election issue. They did this and succeeded in bringing about the defeat of practically all those candidates who had supported the dismissal and who contested the election. Almost a complete new council was elected, pledged to reinstate the engineer, but in doing so not to interfere with officials already appointed. It is now proposed to create a new position, that of supervising engineer, in addition to the positions of engineer and assistant engineer already existing and to offer it to the late engineer. The salary to be offered is £9OO per annum plus £2OO extra if the appointee can supervise the gas department also, with increments up to £1250 per annum. Thus we will have a supervising engineer at £llOO rising to £1250, an engineer at £852 per annum and an assistant engineer at £605. It was proposed recently to appoint a gas engineer at about £6OO. Nothing has been stated since whether this will

now be an additional position, but the supervising engineer at £2OO additional cannot be expected to do the work of an engineer at. about £6OO. The salary of the engineer at the time of his dismissal was £750. The electors were not told that with the re-instatement there would be an increase to £llOO rising to £1250, nor were they told that it was suggested to appoint a gas engineer also. There are no major engineering works in hand, nor can any be undertaken until after the war ends, and then for some time after. It does appear that this proposed additional over-head cost has been brought about by the rash and hysterical promises made at the time of the dismissal and which force of circumstances compelled the “Advance Hamilton” candidates to subscribe to for election purposes. Most of the members of the present council are inexperienced in local body administration. Their actions are certainly bearing this out.—l am, etc.. BUSY BEE.