PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 195, Issue 22458, 20 September 1944, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS DIVISION OF FARM PROCEEDS (To the Editor) Sir, —“Interested,” writing on the case of the sharemilker, sets out the labour costs for milking 100 cows, and asks where the owner’s share of £I3OO goes. I think “Also Interested” has answered that question very ciearly. I doubt if “Interested” has much knowledge of farming or sharemilking. In giving the returns of the sharemilker he omitted to state that the sharemilker is supplied with a free house, free milk, and no doubt a j portion of free cream. He can grow his own vegetables, and in many j cases has sufficient firewood from the j farm. These items are worth from | £IOO to £l5O a year. I agree with “Anno Domini” that it; is a great mistake to bring them all under the one straight packet of rigid award clauses. It will cause much irritation. Conditions from one farm to another vary greatly; also there are good sharemilkers and bad, and the same applies to farmers. Unless both are working harmoniously | together, each trying to be fair to the I other, it will be detrimental to both, j I would say if Mr Lark would stay at | home and mind his own business it J would be better for the farmer, the; sharemilker and the industry.—l am, j eic., PIONEER FARMER, i BISHOP’S STATEMENT (To the Editor) Sir, —In reply to the letters of Mr H. T. Melrose and Mr W. G. Thorpe • regarding the remarks “reported” to j have been made by the Rt. Rev. C. A. j Cherrington, Bishop of Waikato, 1 1 would point out that these two cor- i respondents would appear to have | taken a leap in the dark without j verifying the facts whether these re- : marks were reported entirely in the sense in which they were used. As I see it, the bishop’s remarks were used to illustrate a point in his sermon and should not be distorted to appear as though he had made an anti-Victory Loan an*i an antinational service speech.

In the matter of directing unwilling workers to mental hospitals, Mr Thorpe, in view of his position, should know that a great number of people are temperamentally unsuitable for such work, and should ask himself if he would be willing to work in a mental hospital. It is very easy to write condemning a man who states a candid opinion so long as one is not bound to back that condemnation by example. The only satisfactory method of staffing mental hospitals is by means of voluntary enrolment, and if there are no volunteers, then probably the working and general conditions, rates of pay, etc., would benefit by overhaul and improvement. Both writers of letters would benefit by listening to any address by the Bishop of Waikato, whose uncompromising and forceful speech has embroiled him at times in a lot of misrepresentation, but who has shown a militant Christian attitude at all times, of which any church or creed may be proud.—l am, etc., H.G.V. SHAREMILKER S CASE (To the Editor) Sir,—ln reply to Mr Harbutt’s answer to my challenge, I am afraid I can only briefly sum him up as follows. It interests him not two hoots whether or not the sharemilker makes wages. He begrudges the farmworker, still the lowest paid worker per working hour, the protection granted him by our Labour Government and apparently would like to see a return to the days of unemployed fighting for the crumbs from his table. Let me conclude in my reply to him, that he has revealed the fact that capital, which .is obviously his one concern, cares not two hoots about the workers’ position and would wreck the economy of the country to satisfy its own selfish profits. In reply to “Also Interested” let me first of all inform him that I am a half sharemilker of life-time experience and so know something of farmers’ expenses. lam not going to dispute his figures but will definitely say that anyone knowing anything about farm expenses will agree that he has exaggerated his estimates in practically every case to suit his argument. Like Mr Harbutt, he make no attempt to deny that the sharemilker is not making ordinary award wages where he milks a good average herd. In spite of his exaggerated estimates, I along with the interested public, will thank him for revealing the fact that he received £286 plus £450 interest upon capital value of farm and plant. He must know that in the vast majority of cases the sharemilker has full responsibility of management and that the owner has no other interest than the collecting of his cheque. Taking his own figures, therefore, he clearly shows that the one-third share-milker is entitled to that £286 because he is expected to possess the mentioned skill and knowledge necessary for the successful working of the farm, and that the owner doing no work on the farm is entitled to no more than the £450 interest, a liberal allowance already having been made for depreciation and other expenses.—l am, etc., INTERESTED.