RESTORING CUTS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 147, 19 December 1933, Page 12

RESTORING CUTS

LOWER HUTT PROPOSAL

TO BE CONSIDERED IN MARCH

TIME NOT JET RIPE

Pursuant to notice, Councillor 3. E. Napier moved the following motion at the Lower Hut-t Council meeting last evening:— That this council considers the question of immediately re-engaging for necessary borough works the men who were dispensed with in 1932 as an economy measure, and that the council restore the 10 per cent.. cut in wages to all borough employees on whom it was imposed. lTuvthei', if it is impossible for financial reasons to give effect to these proposals immediately, provision be made in the 1934-35 estimates. ; Speaking to the motion, Councillor Napier said that in his opinion it had been false economy to reduce the staff and to make the 10 per cent. cut. By its action the council had taken money out of circulation and business people had suffered. There was talk of a returning ..confidence —(tho Mayor: But not, of shekels.) —and that talk would ba entirely unfounded unless the community was given greater -spending power. Instead of paying standard wages the Lower Hutt and other councils were getting much of their neces« sary work done under No. 5 scheme. Tho Unemployment Board should bo forced to use its funds for the purpose for which they were meant instead of paying them out for subsidising private firms. The re-employing of the menput off would cost £6050 iper annum, and tho restoration of the 10 per cent, cut £710 per, annum. Tho Mayor (Mr. J. W* Andrews) said that the £710 would cover the restora.' tion of wages, but not salaries. BURDEN ON RATEPAYERS. Councillor Wilson seconded the motion pro forma, but said that though in entire, sympathy with the proposal he could not sec how it could be carried out without casting a burden on the ratepayers, many of whom >yere in a worse position than they were two years ago. The first thing to do was to restore wages to the lower-paid men. "The council's first duty is to place the borough in a sound position," said, the Mayor. "To reinstate the 29 men would cost £6032 per annum, :but,;.th9 engineer at the present time could only 'reinstate nine men. This would cost £1872, but would mean displacing all the No. 5 men now on maintenance work." Special work would have to bo put in hand if it was aesircd, "to absorb tho other 20 men, which would involve the raising of loan money. If this work was, say, permanent sealing the cost would be, wages £4160, and material £12,480. Interest and sinking fnnd would mean £2232, therefore the cost of employing the 29 men pub off would be not less than £8264 per year, and this would mean an increase in tho rates of l^d. Not only would tho cost be £8264, but the question would arise what to do with the.other 396 men of the 425 now employed under No. 5 ■ scheme. If the council had to accept the responsibility of these men it would mean at least an additional £2500. It was apparent that a definite saving of £2000 could be made on maintenance work by dispensing with all No. 5 men and reinstating nine of, the old staff, but what would be done with all tho borough relief workers, many of whom -were ratepayers or rate owcrs? JOBS FOE OTHER MEN. "The question of the restoration of the; 10.per cent. «ut is a policy matter," continued the Mayor. "Personally I believe in the restoration of tho wages just as soon as it will not prove a;hardship to hundreds who are much worse off than any of the staff, but I cannot agree that tho matter is nearly so urgent as the question of finding a job at some sort of wage for the 800 men from the borough who are still on relief works and the hundreds of others who are equally up against things. Would it be fair to ask a relief worker to pay; additional rates in order that the in-' crease might be passed on to the present, staff? Our funds are certainly, better off than a year ago, but we have a long way to go before, the overdraft is wiped out." The Mayor suggested that Councillor* Napier should withdraw his motion. Councillor Grierson said he would like to see the men reinstated, and the cut restored, but tho borough had not the money and it could not dictate to the Unemployment Board, and if it declined to find No. 5 work the board would say, "Very well, the men must leave and go into camp," and then the trouble would commence. Councillor Campbell said everyone agreed with the sentiments of Councillor Napier, but the carrying out of his proposal would mean hardship for the verjr persons he wanted to help. The fact was that the borough did not have thu work on which to re-employ the twentj«r nine men. It had long finished its development work, and the trouble had been that it had carried an excess of staff for two years more than it should. The policy of subsidising private work had been criticised, but the only way to establish permanent work was by this means. New Zealand had made many mistakes and there had been many hardships, but on the whole its unemployed were the best treated in the world. Councillor Ashton thought that Councillor Napier should have sought to save money by more efficient work in the borough. Councillors Ginger and Meldrum considered the time was not yet ripe for consideration of the subject, HELPING THE UNEMPLOYABLE. Councillor Anderson said the proposal meant restoring the men and the cuts at the expense of ratepayers who had in some cases had two or three cuts. One of the troubles was that the country wan not only keeping the unemployed but the unemployable. In reply Councillor Napier said that the £3000 now spent in supervision oi the No. 5 scheme should be used to pay standard wages and the Government should be required to find work, and supervision also, for the unemployed. Councillor Campbell moved, and Coun* cillor Ginger seconded, an amendment that the matter be considered next March when the estimates for the next year were before the council. It was pointed out to Councillor Napier that if his motion were defeated it would not be easy under the standing orders to bring the matter up for six months. Councillor Napier refused, however, to withdraw his motion, and was its only supporter. The amendment was carried.