Beneficiaries could lose allowance

Press, 22 October 1986, Page 3

Beneficiaries could lose allowance

Beneficiaries who support their benefits by earning the maximum allowable income of $6O a week lose any accommodation allowance that they may be receiving. This was confirmed yesterday by the assistant director of benefits and pensions in the Social Welfare Department in Christchurch, Mr Cliff Money.

It was reported in “The Press” yesterday that a person on an unemployment benefit with one child could receive an income of $309.93, made up of the benefit, Family Support, an accommodation allowance, and the allowable income. But because the allowable income wipes out the entitlement to an accommodation allowance, the beneficiary can get $276.93, not $309.93. This is $6.93 more than ' a process worker with one i child can get from the ' award wage, plus Family

Support, guaranteed minimum income, family benefit, and a special accommodation allowance.

An advertisement by the Engineers’ Union in “The Press” yesterday highlighted the story of Sandy, a process worker. It did not mention that she should be getting a guaranteed minimum income of $250 a week and that she may also be entitled to a special accommodation benefit. The director of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, Mr Colin Mclnnes, said that the union’s “propaganda campaign” followed “the same tired and conservative line that trade unions have pursued in this country for years.” “The level of wage increases being sought by the union (11.5 per cent) simply cannot be sustained by most engineering companies. Fighting for what the union might consider to be a living wage may at the end of the day leave people like Sandy without a job,” he said.

“It is high time unions recognised that strong wage growth comes from industries where there is flexibility in conditions and staff support to produce goods efficiently and sell them in, a competitive, cut-throat market place,” said Mr Mclnnes. “Supporting a sagging national award system which has to reflect the positions of thousands of different employers, many who are going through hard times at present, is not the way to go.