RELIEF WORKS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 5, 6 July 1910, Page 3

RELIEF WORKS.

WHAT IS A LIVING WAGE? UNEMPLOYMENT AND ARBITRATION AWARDS.

Under the heading "Arbitration Act, 1908," an important remit came before the Municipal Conference yesterday, in the following words : "That no award made by an Arbitration Court shall apply to workmen employed by a borough council on works- undertaken solely to relievo distress arising from unemployment." — (Christchurch.) The mover v/as Mr. Charles Allison, Mayor of Chrisfccburch, who pointed out that when the periodical winter distress arrived it was the part of the municipality to establish relief works. At the same tune the money available was not sufficient always to give relief to all, if the men were paid at arbitration award rates. They had tried to get over the difficulty by giving the men work, week aud week about. He did not think arbitration awards should prevail in every c&so when work had to be given to the unemployed. A FAIR WAGE FOR THE WORKER. Mr. John Barr (Sumner) strongly opposed the motion. Every official conversant with awards knew that the action suggested in tho motion was not required. The Arbitration Court awards provided for under-rato permits. Mr. Barr read the clause in the Christchurch general labourers' award. Ho urged that no general labourer to-day got a living wage. Voice : Bunkum. Mr. Barr : It is not bunkum when you take into consideration -that general labourers ar© not in constant work. A good man seldom averaged more than £2 throughout the year. He was against useless work being done to relieve distress. Permanent work might be undertaken that would be of benefit to the community, if it were done under proper supervision. A man who did a fair day's work should get a fair day's pay. As for .tailors and ot-her men who were not labourers by occupation provision might be made for some such payment as 6s a day. The unions in the time of the late distress had contributed' heavily towards relief. At the same time, said Mr. Barr, the Government should provide woTk. The workers did not want charity. He hoped that others would have the same consideration and' honesty of purpose tbat he had. The President: You, must withdraw that statement. Mt. Barr withdrew the remark and asked the conference not to keep citizens as beggars but as honest independent men. Mr. J. Vigor Brown (Napier) agreed with Mr. Barr. • At Napier, in tho time of distress, they had paid 9s a day and had taken the pick of the men offering. Mr. J. J. Niven (Napier) disagreed with his Mayor. (Laughter.) What became of the poor beggars who could not do the work so well? There was really no loophole for reduced wages. AVOID TROUBLE. Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh (Wellington) declared that the clause in tho awards applied to incompetents. They should treat the matter on general principles and start with the idea tbat it was not the fault of the worker that he could not get workg> They should recognise it was their duty to support a man who could not get work. Any man could come and demand relief and get it. They should not pay such a man under-rate wages. They should pay him full wages and get full work out of him. If they attempted to carry out the spirit and letter of the motion, what would bo the effect? They would not gain much. .They would accentuate tho diSerences between Capital and Labour in New Zealand. Every Labour union in tho country would resent it. What was the good of irritating people when there was nothing to be gained by it? He hoped the conference would reject tho motion. Mr. H. Haydon (Palmerston North) said it was a question of employers as well as employees. Employers suffered by bad times also. Mr. J. A. Nash (Mayor of Palmerston North) disagreed with his councillor. (Laughter. ) THE SPRINGS OF PHILANTHROPY. Mr. J. J. Devine (Wellington) upheld the motion. Local bodies were not desirous of cutting down wages, but it would dry up the springs of philanthropy if if became known to the public that municipalities were paying labourers on relief works in times of distress the full wages current in times of prosperity. The whole business should be left to local authority. Mr. C. E. Mackay (Wanganui) said it was a peculiar form of charity, the springs of which would dry up when it was proposed to give a man employed on relief works a decent living wage. (Hear, hear.) Every efficient should get a full reasonable rate of pay. Every inefficient should get what fie was worth under the permit clause. SUMMARY OF POSITION. The president (Mr. T. M. Wilfoi-d) summarised the position. In relieving the distress of unemployment municipalities were not carrying out more than their ordinary obligation io those who it realised were unable to help themselves. There was a possibility of the conference giving a sort of legislative sanction to municipal bodies, acting harshly according to the particular phases of the case . through lack of some regular rate of wages fixed to rule throughout the whole country. He hoped that the State or the municipality would ace that whatever rate of wage was paid was a living wage. Nobody would pretend that 8b a day was beyond a living wage. What had to be faced in the future was whether or not the worker should receive 10 per cent, beyond a living wage. A living wage_ meant a bare existence and the initiation of a class in the community who at the end of each day would have nothing over. Was" it better to have such a class or give 10 per cent, over, so that the people might be able to make provision for emergencies and for the future and, if possible, avoid having to claim charitable aid or an old R£<s ponsion? Whatever the amount of money to bo paid away in relief works they should see that tho wage was a living wage. The motion was lost by 24 votes to 39.