RELIEF WORKS

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 150, 25 June 1921, Page 5

RELIEF WORKS

RATES OF PAY

MEMBER'S NEW PROPOSAL.

Correspondence in regard to the rates of pay for men on. relief works has parsed between Mr. G. Mitchell, M.P., and the Acting-Prime Minister (Sir Francis Bell). Mr.-Mitchell wrote on 15th June as follows:—

"In reference to our conversation about the pay of married men on relief works, and my exception to the flat rate paid to all married men, no matter what the size of their family, I cannot pufc""th© matter more plainly before you than by a comparative table showing how much the husband has to provide for his wife and family under your present system of pay of 12s per day flat rate to married men and 10s per day foV single men. Allowing, say, 25s per week for food of worker on works, the following table will show what is left to clothe worker and maintain his wife and family:— The columns -represent respectively: (1) Amount left after deducting 25s food allowance; (2) approximate amount of rent, fire, and light for family; (3) 8.-dance of wage left; (4) approximate weekly amount per head left to maintain family.

"You will see by the above table that a single man and a married man without a family i« not comparatively in such.a bad state1, but the marked drop in the "amount per. head comes so soon as there is a family, and becomes more desperate aa the family increases. It costs the Salvation Army approximately 9s per head per week to maintain children in their Home, and as tho present 'pay allows a man 6s. Id per head per week for a family of (wife and two children) down to Is 2fl per week for a family of ten, it will be seen how hopeless it is for a man to provide for a family under the present system of wages. Bemember also, that these figures are based on a full week's work. If there are wet days and no pay, or loss of time through sickness of worker, the overhead charges are just the' same. The wife and child must,therefore, go a little shorter. "Let me give you two typical cases of men who came to enlist my help to obtain relief work the same day:—(l) A married man without children, with wife working in town earning £3 ,per week, requested my help to get him on relief work. His wages would be 72s per week, giving an income of £6 12s for man and wife. (2) A married man with four children, .paying 353 per week for rent, fire, and- lighting,, sought relief work. Like the* above man he would receive 72s per week.. After taking out 35s rent and 25s per week for his food on 30b, he would have to clothe himself and feed and clothe his wife and four children on the sum of 12b per week, if he worked a full week of 48 hours, which works out to the magnificent sum of Is lOd per head per week, or 3d per head per day, on which to feed and clothe his dependents. • "Can you, wonder that we are rearing mental and physical ' underlings, when the helpless women and children, who have the greatest call on man's protection and help, are v the first and last sufferers in every strike, every slackness, every financial crisis, or other, economic disturbance? I propose, therefore, that you 'create a, child sustenance fund in connection with relief works, that pay to all men on the works, whether; married or' single, should be the same, that you pay to the mother the sum of 26 per day and Is per day for- each of the children'under 16 years of age, from such fund for every day's work the husband works. After allowing for the worker's food and for rent, fire, and light for his family, .the following will plainly show the amount per head per week the husband would have on which to maintain his dependents. The parents are included in the members of the family. V . ' Amount under Amount proposed under cnild present . sustenance ' 1 system. ; .system.

"You will see, that" even with the Is per day child allowance, the man .maintaining a family has a Very great butden, and is rarely abdye the bread and butter line. It is a . man's duty to ,provide for^his family; all I wish is to help him do it Better, that we may have a more contented home life, and better and healthier children. I would go farther, sir, and apply the. principle nationally, but I propose to make that the subject for a later communication. In the meantime VI trust .that, realising the burden on the family man under the present system, you will see your way. to adjust it;" In a letter dated 20th June, Sir Francis Bell replied as follows:—"I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, and desire, to thank you for the trouble yon have taken to set out clearly your proposals for allowance per child to the mothers of families of men engaged on relief ivories, and. your arguments in support-. I will submit the question to Cabinet at an early date. But in anticipation, I may point out to you that we could hardly pay JEW 2s per day to a man with 10' children under. 16. If any scale were :proviaed of increase of gay 'p«r child where there are children dependent, the increase must cease at a certain number."

1. ■• 2. 3. 4. Family, s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. Siugle^min (1) 35 0 .. .. 35,0 Married man .... (2) 47 0 .. .. 23 6 Mar. man, 1 child (3) 47 0 22:6 24,6 .8 2 2 children (4) 47 0 22 6 24 6 6 U 3 children 1 (5) 47 0 26 0 22 0 4 4 4 children (6) 47 0 30 0 17 0 2 10 B-children (7) 47 0 35 0 12 0 1 8£ 6 children (8) 47 0 35 0 12 0 16 7 children '..(9) 47 0 3o 0 12t) 14 8 children (10) 47 0 35 0 12 0 1 2

Family. 5. d. Single man (1) 35 0 Man and wife A.. (2) 23 0 Man and wife \. (3) 8. ,2 Z children (4) 6 1 3 children (5) 4 4 4 children (6) 2 10 , 5 children : (7) 18a 6 children (8) 16 7 children (9) 1 4 8 children (10) 1 2 s. d. 35 0 23 0 10 0 9 0 8 0 6 10 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0