SUBSIDIES ON WAGES.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20567, 8 June 1932, Page 10

SUBSIDIES ON WAGES.

BUILDING TRADE SCHEME. OPPOSITION FROM MASTER BUILDERS. The scheme of subsidies on wages proposed by the Unemployment Board in connexion with the building trades was discussed at last night's meeting of the Canterbury Builders' Association over which Mr R. C. Jamieson presided. A motion was agreed to suggesting that tho Board should lend some of its funds to builders, at a low rate of interest. Mr W. P Glue said that as far as he could interpret the scheme, as published in the newspapers, tho Government in their desire to help builders had "smacked them to leg." As he reul the scheme, anyone could be empkfed to do a job. In such a case, how did the public fare? The public should be shown tho evils of the scheme. They would have no guarantee as to what the job was going to cost, or what its quality would be. The Government should put the scheme on a fair basis to the industry. Under the scheme the worker was to receive £3 7s 6d; but at present any number of builders were doing work at less than £3 a week.

The chairman: What is yonr suggestion ? Mr Glue said that the work should be done through legitimate channels, and the public should get the benefit of stated prices and of a builder's experience; aud the Government should help a man to keep his business together. It appeared to him that the Unemployment Board had gone into the matter haphazardly, and had included in the scheme a lot of matter that he could make neither head nor tail of. He urged the association to join forces with the workers' unions, and said thnt only bv united action could they get anvwhere in the matter. They should do everything possible to keep wages up. The whole trouble at present was shortage of spending power. If waces were kept up soending power would be established. • Award Kates Wanted. Mr "W. H. Winsor said that there was nothing in the scheme to say that they were not going to pay _ award wages. They wanted to be sure oa that point, and had asked for something definite. There wos a loophole in the scheme, and it was possible to use it to force things down. Mr G. .D. Simpson said that if they insisted on award rates the scheme would break down of its own weight. He favoured nny scheme that would create building activity, provided that there was no interference with wages. The chairmsn remarked that quite 50 per cent, of the house-painting being done was undertaken I>y men out of work—the master painter did not get a look in. If the percentage were increased under the scheme it would mean that the owner of a house would have to provide plant costing £5.

A member said that the amount of work that could be done without plant was surprising. Mr Winsor did not think that !t would be found worth while to do small jobs under the scheme because the employer had to provide workers' compensation cover, and find plant aadj scaffolding; on top of that he had totake the risk of the class of individual who was to do the job.

Subsidy on Big Jobs. If the Unemployment Board could subsidise such a job as the Canterbury Hall, or make a straight-out grant of £4OOO or so A member: Or the State Eire Insurance Office job. Mr Winsor (continuing) said that there would be something tangible to assist them to carry on. Ho argued that the Unemployment Board was going on totally unsound lines in subsidising local bodies to find such work as cleaning footpaths. When normal times returned people would expect such work to be continued, and that would involve increases in the rates. There was no question in his mind that the sanest and safest and most economical way was a sustenance allowance. Mr W. "Williamson: The dole. Mr Winsor: Don't call it a dole, which means giving something for nothing. Opposed to Cheap Labour. Mr J. Lorriincr said that taking bread and butter from one body of people and giving it to another did not i seem to be sense. He was absolutely opposed to the subsidy scheme. The private individual had no right to cheap labour. He had always been opposed to cheap labour, and if it were introduced it would drag everyone! down to the level of forty years ago. The scheme was a deliberate attempt to get cheap labour. If the scheme was going to lower the building artisan's wages one penny a week he would fight it as long as he could.

No Scheme Perfect. The chairman said that any scheme that would put more men to work should be supported whole-heartedly. Any scheme was sure to have anomalies, I and to contain provisions that did not fit the circumstances, but he did not think they should condemn it alto- . gether. The Association had made sev--1 eral suggestions for the improvement of the Bdard's scheme. One was that no subsidy should bo paid on any wages not at award rates. Another was that if a private person employed men under the scheme he should be cited immediately under the award and made a party to it. Another suggestion was that the Board should lond money at a low rate of interest for ten vears to subsidise wages; the point was that this money must be used for tho employment of labour. Mr W. Williamson moved:— That the Association write to the executive of the New Zealand Builders' Federation and suggest that it should co-operate with tho Unemplovment Board in giving effect to tho sugg'estion that the Board should capitalise the unemployment tax and lend it at a low rate of interest to individuals, or firms not in competition with existing builders, * He said that in time the interest from these loans would form the nucleus of a big fund, and it would be more beneficial than the expenditure being made at present. It could be stipulated that ail the material used, wherever possible, should be New Zealand made or produced. r Mr w. P. Glue seconded, and the motion was agreed to.