Unionists query dole views of Sir Thomas

Press, 1 February 1983, Page 12

Unionists query dole views of Sir Thomas

! Trade union officials in i Canterbury disagree or give ■ only qualified support to the i views of the former presij dent of the Federation of I Labour. Sir Thomas Skinner, i on unemploj-ment and the J dole. I Sir Thomas was reported f to have told a Dunedin Roti ary Club meeting on January ’ 27’ that an employment bureau should be set up to match unemployed people with job vacancies. If the unemployed did not accept j the job offered, they would ; not receive unemployment ! benefit. ’ Three trade union officials found it hard to believe that Sir Thomas made such comments without qualifying i them. The Labour Party \ spokesman on social welfare, i Mr G. W. R. Palmer, said I that what Sir Thomas advoI cated was already the j case. i "As the law is now, you must accept a job offered to you or show that you are searching for one or you don't get the benefit," he said. Mr Palmer said that the number of people trying to dodge work was minimal. Mr R. A. Lowe, chairman of the Canterbury Trades Council and Combined State Unions unemployment committee. found it hard to believe that a former F.O.L. president would even contemplate saying the things he was reported to have said. People generally wanted to work as long as it was available. "However, that work must be useful to the worker and to the community and the country. The probvlem with a lot of job schemes is that they are soul-destroying and of use to no-one. Work for the sake of work is not going to achieve anything." If people were denied the benefit for refusing to accept jobs, they would in effect become slave labour. “You can’t force people to do something that is incompatible with them. All you are doing is creating further problems." said Mr Lowe. Mr Palmer said that the Labour Party wanted the unemployment benefit scrapped and replaced by job training and job-search programmes, coupled with an economic policy designed to create full employment. The secretary of the Canterbury branch of the Engineers’ Union, Mr R. J. Todd, said that in certain circumstances, he would agree with Sir Thomas but he did not think that the latter would have said the dole should be withheld where a person declined a job offer.

“One ot the things about working is that it should give you a certain amount of job satisfaction.” Mr Todd said. If an offered job equated to a person's skills and ability and was still refused then Mr Todd would agree with Sir Thomas that the person concerned should be denied the dole. “To boldly say that if offered a job and you refuse you should not get the dole is going too far," -said Mr Todd. Forcing a person to take on a job which did not suit him could have detrimental effects on the person’s future work attitude Mr Todd said that there were not jobs available to provide all the unemployed with the choice of a job or no dole. Any vacancies were usually for skilled people, while most unemployed are unskilled. The secretary of the Canterbury Hotel Workers' Union. Mr G. D. Harding, did not think the number of vacancies matched the number of job-seekers, and the situation had been worsened by Government cuts in spending. However, a more determined bid had to be made to find more jobs. The bureau suggested by Sir Thomas would have to have more “clout” then the Labour Department if it were to “extract" more jobs from employers. Mr Harding did not think Sir Thomas would have made the statements without. in some way, qualifying them. A feature in the F.O.L. “Bulletin" in April, 1979, just before Sir Thomas retired after 16 years as president, attacked a Young Nationals leader for his suggestion that the benefit be cut by a third. The anonymous author of the article rejected a suggestion by the Young Nationals leader that the dole was so generous and readily available that there was insufficient incentive for people to look for jobs or remain in employment. "The reduction of the unemployment benefit is quite intolerable — expecting people and their families to

eke- out an existence on a pittance is .vet another example of the old. nineteenth century Poor Law mentality still going strong." said the F.O.L. article. It said that as well as ensuring adequate remuneration for the lower paid, unions had an interest in the organisation and quality of work itself. "Should employers be surprised that people are not content to perform low-paid, repetitive, boring unsatisfying jobs?" said the “Bulletin.'' The same issue of the “Bulletin" carried a frontpage picture of Sir Thomas and wished him well in his retirement. A senior lecturer in sociology at the University of Canterbury. Mr R. G. A. Gidlow, said that it was regrettable that a man of Sir Thomas's standing in the community should lend credence to such simplistic views. People did not need to be “driven" to work by the threat of cancellation of benefits. People could only be "driven" to work if work existed. Job vacancies nowhere near matched the number of job seekers. Unemployment w’as an outcome of lack of demand for labour rather

than an “over-choosy" group of job-seekers. “If the threat of dole cancellation were to be implemented. it would be extremely discriminatory. If those in employment are allowed to make choices about whether to pursue a new job. and if so, which one, why should this basic right be denied unemployed job-seek-ers?" Mr Gidlow said that matching job-seekers with job vacancies was a complex task which did not simply depend on the matching of the skills required and the skills being offered. "Factors such as the distance to and from work, the availability of transport, and health considerations are routinely taken into account by people when applying for jobs or considering job offers." said Mr Gidlow. Sir Thomas had said that the crime rate was "unbelievable" because there was "too much idle time," too much frustration." Mr Gidlow said that the only point which could be made with any certainty on the relationship between crime, unemployment, and idleness, was that it was so complex and the information on it so inadequate that nothing could be said with anv certainty.