CITY COUNCIL LABOUR

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 125, 30 May 1922, Page 7

CITY COUNCIL LABOUR

RECENT DECISION CRITICISED

The question of reductions in the wages of labourers in the employ of the City Council is dealt with by Councillor P. Fraser, M.P., in the course of a written statement to The Post. ' • ' "

In protesting against the cut in -labourers' wages made ,by the City Council, Councillor Fraser says that not only was it resolved, "with indecent haste," to deduct the five shillings specified in the Aribitration Court order, but it was further decided to abolish the payment for wet weather, which has been^in operation for several years. "One of the best acts of the council during Sir John P. Luke's office as Mayor was to ensure that the permanent workers in tho city's employment could always depend on a fixed weekly wage regardless of weather conditions," says Councillor Fraser. "Every man who turned up;to his work on .a' wet day, when it was impossible to carry on that particular job, was given inside work when possible, or was ask^ed to stand by to resume when required. There was no docking o£- wages for wet weather. It is true that the weekly wage was never adequate to maintain a fair standard of living for an average family, but it was at least a guaranteed weekly wage, and the city's labourer and his wife' had not tho constant' and recurring fear of a short week and short pay in addition to their other household wotries. It will ever be a blot on Mr. Wright's Mayoralty that the.old -wicked state of affairs was reintroduced during his term of office, and that, iv consequence, the lives of a considerable number of working-class mothers were made more worried and miserable than during the previous two years:"

Councillor Fraser1. says that allowing 25s per week for lent (a low estimate) out of the full wage £4 Is 9d, the labourer's wife will have £2 16s 9d per week, or 8s Id per day, to feed1 and clothe her husband, herself, and three, four, five, or sis children, to meet the liundied and: one expenses of the household, as well as to make provision for sickness and other emergencies. If thei'e is one wet day in any week she will [ find herself 14s lOd short, or. with only £3 6s lid to meet all expenses. When she has paid her rent bill she will be left with £2 Is lid', or about fe per day to provide for her family's needs. If there axe two wet da-ys. in the same week, ■she will find herself with only £2 12s Id, out of which, after she has paid rent, she will have £1 7s, or 3s Ojd per day. to satisfy the wants of her children, husband, and herself. If there should happen to.be three wet days in the one week (not an uncommon occurrence during the winter time), the City Council labourer will have as his wage for that week the sum of £1 17s 3d, which, alter ,<the landlord has been ,paid, will leave 12s 3d, or Is 9d per day to meet all household expenses.

The total estimated annual amount to he withdrawn from the wages of the labourers is £9700, / says Councillor Fraser, the five shillings weekly cut accounting for £6700, and the stoppage of •payment for wet weather effecting a saving of £3000. The unimproved value of Wellington 'is £15,303,110.. The total "saving" of £9700 represents 15-lOOths of a penny per £1 of unimproved value, or Is 3d per £100. The "saving" on the 5s out amounts to 10-lOOths of a penny per £1 unimproved value, or lOd per £100. The' "saving" of £2000 from the bare necessaries of life of the wives and (children of the City Council's labourers yields 5-100ths of a penny per £1 unimproved value, or Sd per £100. On an average dwelh'ng-house section it might mean anything from 7d to lOd per annum. Councillor Fraser .does not believe that there is a single "decently-minded" ratepayer who would support such a policy as that. adopted by the City Council.

In conclusion, Councillor Fraser points out that the Ohristchurch City Council* xgfuecd to cut down iU lniour«s' WAgc*.