UNEMPLOYMENT

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21714, 22 February 1936, Page 22

UNEMPLOYMENT

TO THE EDITOR OIP THE PRESS. Sir,—l have been waiting patiently for the new Government's unemployment policy, but as far. as. one can judge, except for a small increase m relief and susteniance payments, it appears to differ little from that of its predecessors. . ' „No attempt has been made, or even mooted, for correcting the evils that i the faulty administration of the. unemployment fund in the past has The fund itself ,is still the fmlbh cow of local bodies, farmers, itiuilders, etc., and until it ceases to S'tfej such, it is hard to understand how \ the: problem can ever be overcome. I When the act was passed in the first ■v'rilace, it was never intended to utilise -ike money for the above, purpose. It was to be used as a sustenance fund for those contributors who were unfortunate enough to be out of work and not as a means to maintain fictitious land values/assist local bodies «to balance their budgets, and hay gratuities to those few people who ; were in the fortunate position of being able to build a new home or enlarge their business premises or factories. How any or all of these "schemes" are likely to assist either the unfortunate ,„ person who is out of work to regain ! regular, worthwhile employment, or to relieve the* rest of the community from \- the burden of taxation, still remains a! mystery. Those who had hoped when the new; Minister took charge of this question these "schemes", would be .things of, ■, the past must have felt somewhat un- ; easy: with some of the proposals that have recently been put forward, apj ' v ftarently ; ' with that, gentleman's apJproval. - "~. ■ '■-.:. ''- ''.' ■■■.. £ i First, a showtime ago they would iHave noticed that, some local bodies, making arrangements with the 'j Unemployment Boarder a supply., of £•mbour to kill rabbits, ri%ious,; weeds, satciv that were causing ratepayers in i |theic. respective districts some..trouble. ?Then a few days ago they, were told that a large irrigation scheme was to| ? be put in hand at Ashburton, and the «,whole of the labour cost was to be borne by the unemployment fund.! Surely it 'is not the function of the payers of unemployment tax to bear the cost of such work. With regard to irrigation, if .it is only desirable provided that the labour cost is borne by the unemployment fund, what title have the people in this particular locality to the said labour, the cost of which has to be shared by all the rest of the Dominion, and further, what effect will the scheme when completed have: on the problem of unemployment. The' same must apply to the eradication of rabbits and noxious weeds, and farmers who have kept these pests in check at their own expense now have, along with the rest of the community, to foot the bill of their dilatory neighbours. ;,'". ~-.-. :"■"':. :-■"..' No valid objection can be raised to a vigorous policy of public works as a means of relieving unemployment, provided the work put in hand is worth what it costs and the costs are borne by those who are going to derive the benefits; but to use money, the collection of which' was authorised, for sustaining unemployed, to,, enhance the value of private property, is surely indefensible.—Yours, exc„ .. M. J. HANLEY. February 21, 1936.

,j TO THE ODITOR OS" THE PRESS.

Sn>-I notice in a report to-day that the Minister for Employment gave Mr Atmore ian assurance that men wno left relief works to take up seasonal work were to be employed on their former relief work as soon as their seasonal work finished. Now I consider the rural relief workers to be the most harshly treated of that class of workers. They are the most .reliable and independent workers, as a rule, but do not participate in benefits of work as do the town men. We have much to thank Mr Savage for when he gave his bonus at New Year, as that has had

to stretch out until the present time.

j*The' weather having been atrocious f|,;ihis, season, to say nothing of high and the phenomenally large linumber of broken binders causing J endless delay, the rural worker is J shaving a very lean time of it. As a kman, vdth a family I have had seven L days' full work since Christmas, payfor which is still due. Yet we [ country men are penalised by having j-. to stand down for a few months for t about a fortnight's work. 4 In previous { years the workers were 'lucky to get j three weeks' work in three months, as j farmers do not employ labour except J when absolutely necessary—at stacking times, etc., when all hands in the I countryside are employed .for a couple J cf days. Country workers- are roigratLing to'town in large numbers, and if Jrelief work is not more satisfactory, there will be a great shortifage of skilled shearers arid harvesters, jm, s consider trie county councils, who jpiave,had-.so much maintenance work toy relief labour, should be able mfa give these men a few days monthly, JUbtherwiSje there will be a serious exofldus of workers from the country to the flown.—Yours, etc.,. j , PACKING UP. I"-" February 21, 1036: