THE BUILDING SUBSIDY

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 25, 29 July 1932, Page 6

THE BUILDING SUBSIDY

(Tp the Editor.)

■ Sir,—l wish to bring:under?:ttie notice of-various-^tradesmen and 'others interr estcd eome-of the pitfalls under the new Scheme 10, as I/thinkf-everyone ehoultl know the scheme"'and what it js'ihte'nded ■for. . - ..■■••■ '. .?■ ~- ■■.'. ■■■ ■':'-. V- ' Firstly, persons, applying for the- subsidy, should make1 themselves fully ; acquainted withy; the -virkms. le^ws : aud awards governing any industry,, and: the. workers themselves- should not. sign any agreement at less than award rate of pay where; an award exists,; also see they ore safeguarded -as to the relationship between employe*, and worker, go'that if any breach' of award occurs it' can be dealt.with promptly, also a safeguard in case of accidents.', Award rates must be ;.paid iv full each week, unless an agreement"is entered,into for any: other, part payment, or-when the job is completed.' Then,,the full amount can be paid. If no agreement js made then wages, must be paid in full each week of the engagement to each worker^ and then the applicant for. the subsidy ,can claiiu not ittpre than 22s 6d for each man in any one week, "but. it must ~be; shown that the' .wages have been paid less tax; '.' .■ .-' : ;... . ■ .'■ ' ; ■' ]. ' ■ -■.■ A case, in polnV is one qf-my own men engaged on an* < alteration job, and an agreement was placed in front of him to i sign for £3 for the week's wprk- of 44 j hours ■ wljjk. a verbal, understanding; that the extra, rate of 'pay. would be forthcoming to make upthe award' ratfes when the subsidy was-granted. The first week '£3 was paid,, then'the second week £2 17» was offered, which was refused aud yias not yet been paid,/although the subsidy has been paid onC ' ; >. ■ ■ Tho worker should have been -paid £8 18s 2d,less tax of Is in the £, under the award,' yet only received £3 for the first week and was offered £2.17s for the second week, thus losing £3 Is 2d on the deal. In the interview with, the applicant, when claiming the full award rates for the work done,. I was told that when a man made an, agreement to work for £3 a week that was all he could expect. This is a distinct breach. of award on both parties, the man for working at the rate signed for-and the employer for paying lesser rate without permit being issued. This Sort of thing is going to kill the scheme, as the-worker is going to be exploited unless he is wide awake. The solicitor when interviewed toade a complaint that his client for the subsidy should have been given all facts of Acts, awards', and laws, etc., by the bureau when applying, ;as he says they are simply given the forms, etc., to fill in and the man's card to show he was engaged from the bureau. In my own opinion tho matter lies with the applicant, who becomes the employer ,TiJLidei: the scbemtfc and the onus is on the.

ordinary employers under awards* and agreements, . and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the laws on the part of any person. In the electrical trade it will be as well for all parties concerned to see that the man is licensed under the Wiremen's Art and demand to see the licence, also to see that tbe application ofr the permit is sent to the supply authority before the job is started, and the notice of completion sent in as soon as the job is finished, and the wireman's ticket is placed on the board for the inspector to collect, as these are offenceß under the Act. •Trusting these matters will be helpful to all applying, and those working *under Scheme 10. —I am, etc., H. E. SWINDELL, 1 Secretary, Electrical Workers' Uuion. When the above' letter was submitted to the Unemployment Board, its official comment was that the conditions of employment set out in the letter have always prevailed in private agreements, even before Scheme 10 was, inaugurated, and however one may disagree with the practice of private agreements involving wage rates lower than award rates, the blame for them being entered into cannot be levelled against the No. 10 Scheme.