TRADE PROTEST.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 130, 5 June 1933, Page 3

TRADE PROTEST.

RETAIL BOOT SHOPS. UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD POLICY. STRONG OPPOSITION. Boot and shoe retailers met this afternoon to protest against the. Go\einmcnt's action in supplying to relief workers and their families boots and shoes which are to be paid for by addi-

tional work. One speaker said that the policy of the Unemployment Board was dangerous in principle. '' 1U woikci was robbed of his spirit of independence and bis moral fibre was undermined in consequence. Tlie boards scheme of payment in kind would, if extended, soon be responsible for every person looking to the Government for everything he or she ate, used or wore, and a So\ict Russia in miniature would be created. Another retailer said that if the Unemployment Fund was sufficient to finance the purchase and distribution of 200,000 pairs of boots and shoes surely it was sound enough to pay a higher rate to relief workers, leaving them the right to make their own purchases. the board's scheme is neither helpful nor economically sound,' he continued, "owing to the fact that all retail stores are only too willing to sell to the board at cost price, plus a 10 per cent handling commission."

" Means Staff Reduction." Similar views were expressed by others. "Tiic ultimate result of the board's policy must be a reduced turnover in the shops," said one. "This means a reduction in stalls, and an increase in the number of unemployed. The board puts up the fallacious argument that retailers will not bo injured because trade is being created that formerly did not exist. Where does the board think the wives and children of relief workers are obtaining their footwear at the present time'/" he asked. The same argument could be applied to everything used and consumed by the relief workers. The Minister of Employment has said that the relief worker is not earning sufficient to Inn' decent boots, but neither is he earning enough to buy decent clothing, food and shelter. The solution is higher wages to the relief worker. The business of the retailer is difficult enough, and his burden should not be increased by the present unsound policy. The retailer and his staff are already substantially contributing to the Unemployment Fund, which is now being used in restraint of his business."

A resolution was carried to the effect that the meeting regretted that the Unemployment Board had declined the

definite offers of the retailers to supply relief workers with footwear at a cost lower than the board could supply it at, and that the meeting considered that the worker, having earned the money, had a natural right to spend it according to his own judgment.

A Sccond Meeting. Later in the afternoon there was a general meeting of the retail trade to consider what action should be taken with a view to limiting the Unemployment Board's scope of activity in respect to the supply of goods to relief workers.