The Squatters and Machine-Shearing.

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane August 4, 1894

The Squatters and Machine-Shearing.

By W. G. Spence

The P.U. are trying in a somewhat weak and lame way to argue that men can earn more at machine shearing than by hand, and when asked why they reduce the price talk about the cost of plant, &c., and the interest on capital. Now we all know that no squatter is foolish enough to put up machinery which can only be used a month or two a year unless it pays him to do so. I have just dropped across some few particulars as to the saving to the squatter that there is by using the machines, and as the statement was circulated by Elder, Smith and Co. to the pastoralists, it must of course be true. In reply to the question as to the cost of equipping a shed they say:

To equip a shed usually employing 25 shearers, say, to shear 55,000 sheep:

25 machine shearers with all necessary

fittings will cost . . . . . . . .   £250

Carriage on same . . . . . . . .        3

Erecting shafting, &c. . . . . . .     2

2 h.p. steam engine . . . . . .       75

Carriage on same . . . . . .          10

                                            _____

                                 Total:   £340

Under the observation and direction of a special committee appointed for the purpose of testing the relative value of the machine shears, six sheep were shorn with the ordinary shears by an expert, one of the fastest and best shearers in the western district of Victoria. Three of those selected by the committee were re-shorn by the machine shears, and an average 6oz. more wool obtained from each. It is therefore not too much to assume that the average hand shearing of country sheds would leave from 8oz. to 12oz. of wool on each sheep, which the machine shears will take off.

50,000 sheep, half a pound extra

wool, 25,000 at 8d. . . . .                       £833 0 0

Deduct of machinery, &c., &c,.  .           330 0 0

                                                             ________

Net profit after paying all expenses:      £530 0 0

The above quotation shows that the profits are sufficient in the first shearing to pay total cost of plant and give a big profit beside, so that if they never made any more there would be a gain. No allowance is made for the saving in wages of shed hands, which must be effected if the machines do the work so much quicker as the P.U. claim that they do. Pastoralists also claim that the quality of the work is better, and as quality brings more money for the wool the gain is further added to. In the face of these tacts, and they must be facts, as they are given by the squatters themselves, where is the justification for any reduction in the price of shearing? Surely the squatters do not grudge the poor shearer a shilling or two more earnings, supposing, which is doubtful, that he does earn more with the machines.

I have seen several testimonials from wool brokers to the effect that the wool is worth 1/2d. Per lb. more when shorn by machine than by hand. James Wilson, of Dunlop, values his at that increase, and states, in a published document, “I find there is a difference of half a pound of scoured wool in favour of the Wolseley machine. This I value at 8d. per sheep.” This is £3 6s. 8d. per 100 fleeces, for taking off which the P.U. seeks to reduce men 3s. below the rates of hand shearing. Mr. C. M. Lloyd, of Yamma,Colombo Creek, says, “I can safely assume that that the increased yield from my sheep must be something between 8oz. and 9oz. per head.” E. C. Bloomfield, of Boorolong, and Henry Rickesson, of Artula, both state that the difference in the first year's clip over hand shears will cover all the cost of the plant.

I could quote several others, some of them giving the number of bales exactly, but have said enough to show that according to the squatters themselves they can well afford to pay the old price for shearing.

Now for a word in regard to the difference in earnings between hand and machine shears. I have a statement in my possession made by the owners of Glengallen station, Warwick, Queensland, written for the purpose of showing the advantages of the machines. They shore 39,000 sheep in five weeks and five days with 20 machines. £17 covered all breakages, and they give the average number of sheep per man as being 70. The manager of Cecil Plains, Queensland, gives his average for full days the same year at 80 per man.

I have also a letter from the manager of Albernarle, on the Darling, who says that he had 40 machines and 28 hand shears at work. He states that the machine shearers received in cash thirteen-sixteenths of their earnings and the hand shearers twelve-sixteenths. It must be remembered, however, that he found all the tools, combs, and cutters, &c., for the men shearing with the machines, whereas the hand shearers had to find their own shears, and other requisites.

As the men are now charged for most of the combs and cutters it will be seen that the case mentioned only proves that the men earn no more with the machines than with hand, whilst the profit to the squatter is very much higher.

I have quoted these statements because they are, no doubt, the strongest the other side have, seeing that they were written with the intent that they should be used as an argument for charging men for combs and cutters. It is quite clear that the P.U. had other reasons than those of a profit to be made by a reduction in machine sheds, and that their object is to kill the bushmen's organisation if they can, and then do as they like. They will not succeed in their aim, as old shearers remember too well the tender mercies of the majority of the bank boundary riders who pose as station owners.