"ONE-THIRD OF WAGES"

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 19, 22 July 1932, Page 9

"ONE-THIRD OF WAGES"

STATEMENT •

(To th/B,Editor.)

Sir, —1 desire to draw the attention of the public to ..the .incorrect statement, contained in' the pamphlet issued, by the Allied Building; .Industries ot'-\ Wellington, v The pamphlet. is issued with the •, intention of creating inter-; est and activity in the building trades and particularly to draw: attention to the assistance to be obtained from tho I Government through the subsidy grant-j ed by the Unemployment Board. The incorrect and misleading statement .is as follows:—The, amount of the sub-: sidy v is calculated as. one-third of .the wages paid to all registered unemployed tradesmen engaged '^through the-Gov-ernment Labour Exchange. Tho abovd statement, will lead bno to suppose that the wagp. paid in tho: building -industry..will be two-thirds'; by the person having the work done rand one-third by the Government, and that the wage on' work where the total'labour - cost is under £50, will, bo £3 7s. 6d per week, and on work where the labour cost exceeds"£so: the wage will bo &3 15s per week.' The circular, issued by the Unemploy,ment,:Board, No. 123, in clause 6, states: "Nothing in these; rules shall 'be-taken to interfere with or alter in any way the wages and- conditions provided fort in the award for the .class of. worker concerned.";' in clauso 'S".o£'-. circular No. 123,, where the amount of- the. subsidy is stated,'no reference, whatever appears to .tho subsidy: being one-third: of the wages. '•'■ -. ./; . •.".- ; Tho; pariiphlet issued by the Allied Building Industries of WeUirigtpn. will create considerable disappointment with the- yeryv people it. becks to' interest as well as an injury; to ■ thQ ■wofke£s connected with the building industry. In the interest of the gene-, ral public, .1' hope you will give the .above matter 'the earliest publication possible.-^-I am, etc;;' ' i;' ':n J. l>

,7 P. CORNWELt, Secretary", TiaSes;.aud ; Labour"CouncU,

The point raised by 3tfr.. Corn well was referred to Mr. A. J. Seed, chairman of the Allied Building Industries organisation, who contended that the statenien.t : called "to- question -waar neither incorrect -nor misleading', since the subsidy .which the: TJnemployment Board was willing to' pay, in. respect' of employees absorbed from the, ranks of the unemployed, under the scheme was based on the rate of '65.-:8 d -for every £1 of wages'paid. iThe subsidy, however,. was limited to a maximum of 22s 6d or 25s per week per man* according to' the class of work as outlined in- the board's^- circular. . Mr. Seed' added" that' thort seemed to-be still .a little, doubt, as:.-t6; tbe"'prbeia'ss whereby the subsidy was secured. Actually the subsidy was payable to the owner who put the work' in hand arid was by way of rebate, on his actual wage expenditure. The scheme did not pretend to suggest what, rate of wages should bo paid, but provided a rebate of one-third on the actual wages paid withy the total weekly, limitation, referred to. ; ' ' ' ..'.■■