LABOUR AND THE UNEMPLOYED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21960, 8 December 1936, Page 13

LABOUR AND THE UNEMPLOYED

TO THE EDITOR OF THE I'RESS. Sir, —Mr Hiram Hunter and also “Progress” are very loud in their condemnation oi my attitude towards Mr Semple. Mr Hunter considers that I am politically dense. I may even be able to return this compliment. Why the Minister for Public Works and his admirers should be anxious regarding a shortage of labour for the harvest season is extremely hard to understand. One would almost imagine that these gentlemen consider unemployment a thing of the past, while still we have thousands who cannot be placed in work, and I am sure these men will willingly go harvesting without being driven by the Hon. Minister’s whip. Maybe all the men as yet unplaced in employment are in the opinion of these just gentlemen “scroungers” or “gutter-snipes,” who would “rather live on sustenance than do an honest day’s work,” to quote “Progress.” If Mr Semple kept his Public Works Department employees, whom Mr Hunter says are earning 19s 7d a day, on their jobs, instead of al--1 owing them three months olr to engage in seasonal works, to deprive the workless of an opportunity of earning a few pounds, then he would be doing more good than condemning those who through this generous act of the Minister, will have no chance of getting a little extra cash, but will receive more abuse owing to their inability to obtain their share of sea--1 .ttonal employment. I personally know

I of men who have been g.uing to the i freezing works for some months, seek- j j ing employment, only to be told that | 1 the old hands are expected off public I ; works to restart. Can Mr Hunter! justify this? j Mr Hunter, in mentioning the unemployed, no doubt means the men on sustenance. He says they are on a better wicket. This is because he no doubt knows little or nothing of the difficulties that these men experience in the struggle to exist. I would like him to work out for himself where the good wicket comes in, and perhaps if he would allow himself £1 j a week only, and pay his rent and ' purchase his food at the present m- I creased prices, and at the same time 1 try to retain an appearance of re- 1 rpectability, then perhaps he would I alter his views. Or perhaps if he j had to support seven children, pay lent, tiring, and a hundred and one things necessary, on £3 12s a week, 1 imagine he would consider himself extremely comfortable. Mr Hunter is quite right. I did vote Labour, but am not as he says crying my eyes out because 1 do not own a motor-car and | radio. I. did not say I desired or re- j ciulred the luxuries, but Mr Savage i ! considered we were entitled to them, / so why dispute with the Prime Minis- j ter? There is also no need to remind ; the unemployed that "Parliamentary ' procedure is not of aeroplane veto- ; city.” They already know this from j experience.—Yours, etc.. A. RYAN. December 7, 193(1. t I j 10 mt BIMTOS or TU* !'.:*■)> I i Sir—Mr Ryan is to be congratu- j j lated upon his lot lor on the subject ; i of Labour and trie unemployed* but ; surely he is just a little harsh in his judgment on the Hon. R. Semple. Mr : Semple should not be blamed for his. comments on the unemployed. Those i thousands ol men who were told by ’ lire Labour parly, both before and j after the last general election, that 1 hey only had to wait a few weeks j for' work at their respective occupa-; tions should not gel impatient if they | have to wait a few more years, and ■ in ihe meantime sutror more abuse) I u'om their more fortunate fellow be- | I inns. . | Those who registered for promised ] work on the Public Works Department i and have reported week after week j only to be told “No labour required.” j should not, mind being called loafers, j but should jump for joy at the pros- . peel of milking Mr Semple’s cows— j Yours, etc,. MEGAPHONE. 1 December 7, 193(1. j