JOHNSONVILLE WORKERS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 139, 15 June 1933, Page 10

JOHNSONVILLE WORKERS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l am instructed by my executive to' request you to.correct the -figures contained in your report of the Johnsbnville Town Board's meeting in your issue of Tuesday. I fear -your, report would lead one to understand the relief worker will receive more tinder the new system, which is not'the case; Actually the money is to remain the Bame, but is divided into four weekly payments instead of three as at present. The following comparison may be taken as authentic: Under the present system three weeks are worked and under the new system four weeks' are proposed, the weekly, rates being: A class, single men, present, 11s 3d, ,new; Bs'sd; .'B class, married men, no children, present 30s, new 22s 6d; B class, married men, 1 or 2 children, present 31s 3d, new 23s sd; C class, married men, 3 or more children, present 43s bd, new 32s 6d. In passing I would like to comment oh a r direct contradiction by different members' of the board. One councillor suggested, that the deputation .that waited on the Town" Board. was too. early; as the new scheme was in the hands of the works, committee, that other members of the board were not cognisant-of it, and. that it. was oh,the agenda for discussion' when the deputation arrived. Yet by the report the board could not accede to the deputation's request to hold the scheme in abeyance ''as arrangements have gone too far for the scheme to be ■ab^hdohedaj; such "short notice." —I am,~ *: c'';' :'';,';kELsoN h. ellis,. . : IJon. secretary; Jbhnsonville Branch 'Vfel'iilington Pistrict Relief Workers' Union.