WATERSIDE WORKERS AND SUSTENANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 237, 6 October 1932, Page 23

WATERSIDE WORKERS AND SUSTENANCE.

Tlie statement made by Mr. Hamilton, acting-Minister of Employment, regarding the healthy position of the fund governing unemployment and the possibility of it showing £100,000 surplus at least, comes as real newe to one ! section of unemployed, the watorside ' workers, a l.irge section of whom are engaged on relief 05 per cent of their time and are subject to conditions for sustenance or relief to the extent of 50 per cent lees than that provided for under scheme o. Watersidere seeking sustenance or relief are officially informed that nothing can be done for ] them while they remain members of their union o" until such time as they I take a clearance, and then they can be classed as, and entitled to the privileges enjoyed by, scheme 5 workers, and naturally they come to the conT elusion that the Unemployment Board is short of funds to give them any assistance. The writer's experiences over the last ten weeks I trust will show how a waterside worker, engaged on the wharf only on busy shipping days, is compelled to depend on relief work to eke out a sustenance to maintain with the meagre necessaries of life a family of six. During the month of July, an exceedingly busy shipping month, my earnings were £9 6/. The maximum permitted to be earned to be eligible for unemployed relief is (approximately) £8 15/, so in exceeding this amount I was not entitled to any relief work for the month ci' August. So in August rations were granted to me on four different occasions, and were deducted at i the rate of two days' pay, £1, for each! 18/ of rations granted from the work j that I might be entitled to in September. ) My earnings on the waterfront for \ August were £2 7/. This in addition to rations, £4, equalled £6 7/, and per. j mitted me to be entitled to CJ days ' relief work for the month of September. ' As there was no relief work available in the early part of this month rations were given to the value of 18/ and two days' wages, £1, was deducted from the (>i days allotted, leaving a "balance of 4J daye. These days were worked on relief in the first fortnight in September. On applying for rations in the third week of September I was refused, but in lieu of rations I was permitted to work a further 2J days on relief, and the fourth week, after a day and half of i negotiation, I was permitted to work a further two days. The 4$ days worked are to be deducted' from my October allocation. My total earnings over the last 10 weeks from all sources are: Rations, groceries, five occasions, value. £4 10/; wages from relief, less 5/ unemployment levy, £4 2/C; wages: earned on waterfront, £2 14/3; total £11 6/9; approximately £1 2/8 per week. I trust that the £100,000 surplus may be utilised by the Unemploy-, ment Board in at least allowing a man to provide food, clothes and shelter for his family. U.B. 28.