CHRISTMAS BONUS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 144, 14 December 1935, Page 10

CHRISTMAS BONUS

(To the Editor.) Sir—On Thursday 12th there appeared a letter from "Good Faith" who condemns the action taken by the Government in making two payments of the Christmas bonus. Now, a little thought will show that the administrators of the unemployment fund have acted quite wisely. lam a relief worker too, and I receive a guinea a week for the support of my mother and myself, and it is quite apparent that I am an unbiased critic. Under the late Government I should have received £2 2s for my wages at Christmas, plus a bonus of £1 Is, making a total of £3 3s, which would have been made in two payments also. Under the Labour Government I receive £3 3s before Christmas and after Christmas on January 2, £1 Us 6d, making a total of £4 14s 6d. It is interesting to note that the first payment equals the whole of the payment proposed by the late Government. As anyone can see the Minister of Employment is treating us very fairly, and yet we have people who persist' in shutting tfysir eyes to the truth and behaving like spoilt children because they cannot have things entirely their own way. We know that the majority of the unemployed are men of sense, but at a time like Christmas there would be many who would think of what they had lacked during the year and be tempted to spend unwisely. After the money was spent there would be a run on charitable organisations, which, of course, our Government is only trying to prevent. ■ Anyway the first payment is enough for us to enjoy a better Christmas than we have done in past years on relief. In conclusion, I would like to refer to "Good Faith's" evident definition of a "Christmas Bonus." "Good Faith," I am afraid, is inclined to take the meaning of Christmas very literally. Surely most of us regard Christmas as a period extending from Christmas Eve until the New Year. Because a small portion of the bonus is to be paid on January 2 he contends that it will not be a Christmas bonus! Furthermore—if I remember rightly—the Minister did not make a definite promise; he merely said that he hoped it would not be necessary to hold any of the bonus back from the unemployed this Christmas.—l am, etc., W.H.M. (To the Editor.) In tonight's issue of the "Evening Post" appears an account of a protest meeting to be held by bureau clerks in Auckland who have been eliminated from the benefits of the Christmas bonus for unemployed.. I am quite in agreement with the Auckland men. We bureau clerks are deprived of many benefits which other relief workers receive, such as free issue of boots and blankets, free medical attention, benefits of relief depots, and other charitable organisations, no reduction in quarterly levy instalments, and in addition have to pay wage-tax. Some of us have large families to support, and are expected to keep up appearances. After all, Sir, we are not much better off than the average relief worker, many of whom have their allocations supplemented by earnings from private employment. The Prime Minister, has stated that the relief workers could look forward to having a good Christmas, but I am afraid that disappointment will be felt in the homes of many bureau workers. —I am, etc., ' ' * :;J •" ' " . ■ ' ■ BUREAU CLERK.