BOTTLE LAKE WORKERS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22336, 25 February 1938, Page 10

BOTTLE LAKE WORKERS

TO THE EDITOR OF THB PRESS. Sir, —Just because the Hon. H. T. Armstrong is a Minister of the Crown, and I am one of the most, undistinguished citizens of Christchurch he must not be allowed to dismiss my> criticism of the position of affairs at Bottle Lake as worthless. There under the aegis and with the approval of his department workers are compelled to work for less than the sustenance rat§. The Minister hgs not disputed the facts set out by me in my first letter. He could not. By the way might I point out that the men employed there work four and a half days a month—not eight and a half as stated in your report. But your report makes it clear that the Bottle Lake work is paid for out of the Employment Promotion Fund, for which Mr Armstrong is responsible. Remembering that, and recalling the fact that the workers there are paid less than if they were on sustenance doing no work at all, it is not unfair to assume that Mr Armstrong thinks the position quite reasonable and satisfactory. He has been a worker, as I have been. What would he have said if he in his pre-parlia-mentary and pre-Ministerial days had been asked to work under Bottle Lake conditions? Perhaps, as your report states, the married men on the job/ receive slightly more than the sustenance rate. I cited the case of the single man not to suit my purpose, but because with them I could get a uniform rate. With married men the payment would vary according to the number of dependants. But here again another point arises to which I would draw Mr Armstrong’s attention. The Labour Government has increased the rate of sustenance to £1 a week, for which it is to be thanked. But does Mr Armstrong, with his knowledge of the worker and his and. con-

ditions, think £1 a reasonable minimum on which the single worker can lead a decent life? On ope point I affirm the Minister is absolutely wrong—not intentionally, of course, but he must have been misled. He says that a worker at Bottle Lake can “chuck the job’’ and go on sustenance. He cannot. I have known workers who repeatedly tried to take that course; but they found they could not do it —or if they left the job the menace that they would not get sustenance was immediately brought into evidence. I have worked at Bottle Lake and I‘affirm that if the workers there are given the choice of continuing there at less than the sustenance rate or- going on sustenance, there would not be a single man at the next muster at Bottle Lake. In another’ portion of your report it is. stated that there are few single men there now. Doubtless that is true —I do not know—but is it fair that one single man should be unjustly penalised in this way? It is also stated that many of the workers cycle to work and thus escape payment of the ordinary return tramway fare. But should not something in fairness be allowed for the wear and tear of the bicycle?— Yours, etc., JOHN WORKLESS. February 23, 1938.