"TOO DRASTIC."

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 148, 25 June 1931, Page 3

"TOO DRASTIC."

MINORITY MEMBERS' VIEW. MODERATE REDUCTION FAVOURED. Three members of the Mount Roskill Road Board, Messrs. S. I. Goodall, J. Donald and. A. T. O'Donnell, write as follows: "We desire to poiat out Uiat in die report of the meeting ou Tuesday, no discretion is made between tt.o majority of the board who supported the drastic 'reductions in ii-side and outside stalf, as also those employed under No. 5 unemployment scheme. The wholesale 'sacking' (we advisedly do not use the word 'dismissal') of GO per cent of outside staff and 43 per cent of inside staff was opposed by us, while a fourth member of the board, Mr. Tansley, was absent owing to illness. Our amendment, which was rejected, was to reduce the outside staff proportionately to the intended reduction in the general rate, and to obtain an independent report upon inside staff before taking action. It was pointed out by us, both on that occasion, and also again on Tuesday evening, that the action of the board was immoral, if not illegal, under , the Unemployment Board's rules relating to scheme No. 5. It was further stated by us that the action of the majority of the board in this respect admitted of one construction, and one only, and further that the Unemployment Commissioner in his letter had adopted that construction. "In addition, we pointed out that the resolutions in question did not make good reading together with a resolution passed that evening in the face of our dissent, granting to a member of the board a private telephone at the expense of the ratepayers. The further action of a majority of the board in resolving (upon receipt of the Unemployment Commissioner's letter) 'to reduce the relief workers from 800 to 200 in number does not have our support. A moderate reduction of both inside and outside staff, proportionate to the reduction in the general rate, and a corresponding reduction under scheme No. 5 may be sound policy, but the former certainly is not." "We are still convinced that the dismissals were too drastic," said Mr. J. Donald to-day. "Speaking for myself and my colleagues in the minority, I can honestly say that it would still have been jiossible to give work to at least 800 unemployed men at very little cost to the board." Mr. Donald pointed out that tools, etc., had already been procured. He saw no reason why the board could not adopt the previous policy, and take on the maximum number of unemployed. Inside dismissals, as well as those on the outside staff, would create a very difficult position.