EMPLOYMENT DATA

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 112, 14 May 1938, Page 10

EMPLOYMENT DATA

COMPILING FIGURES ! PREVIOUS SYSTEM r FOLLOWED -: »l* METHODS OUTLINED Pointing out that the present system, which excluded figures relating to men in full-time employment was the same as'that introduced by the previous Administration, the Minister of" Labour • tthe Hon. H. T. Armstrong), in a state* ' -*ient made last night, l outlined the - methods adopted in the compilation of unemployment statistics. The Minister said that it was vastly different in principle to class as unemployed a man who, having registered, was compulsorily set to work often on a job without value and binder conditions which differed entirely from standard or award conditions on the ground that it was only a relief job, than it was to class as unemployed men ! who were placed in useful and pro- ' ductive employment under conditions , that had. been the subject of agree- • ment between the workers and their ' employers, in accordance with the provisions of our industrial legislation. '1 have been accused of juggling With the official unemployment figures because. when we came into office, I included in the unemployment returns all those who were said to have been provided with full-time employment with assistance from the Employment ■ Fund, while today they are excluded from the official unemployment returns," said the Minister. "Quite an amount of the so-called full-time employment that was existing when we assumed office had been started only just prior to the last elections, and ' at the date of the elections 21,267 of the registered men had been excluded from the published figures by the previous Government on the grounds that they had been absorbed in full-time employment f PREVIOUS -CONDITIONS. . < "Now let us see whether this num- , ber should have been excluded or not. This is how they are made up: 827 were • styled 4A men. . These were mostly : young, virile men who were compelled either to go off reliefer to accept work - for farmers; the conditions of their em- . ployment were that they still drew re'.lief pay of 10s per week personally from the" bureau and the farmer had to provide them with shelter and p&y ' them at least 5s per week; only a very few appear to have reported receiving .'more than this minimum. ' "Two. thousand eight hundred were ' compelled to take contract work on , farms scrub-cutting, etc.; they had no ; say whatever in the terms of the contract which was made for them, based on an assumption that they could f if they were goodmen, earn £3 a week, which at that time was less than the f ecognised labourers' rate; if the work were not accepted they were stood down from relief. fOne thousand and three were in camps receiving either 17s 6d per week with food or 27s 0d per week and finding themselves .in food. "Nine hundred and seventeen were waterside workers who were receiving sustenance relief because they were earning less than the recognised relief rate, but these were classedj as fulltime engaged because they hid to attend dally at the waterfront. Today 'if any waterside worker is granted sustenance he is included in the official return. . ' ' . "Seven hundred and eighty-seven were in afforestation camps and had, up to just prior to the election, been in receipt of 17s 6d per week, but had been raised to 9s per day, an arbitrary relief rate which differs entirely in principle from the present Public i Works agreement rate which was fixed ; after; proper consultation with the union concerned. , "Approximately 4000 were employed by the Public Works Department, but at relief rate of 9f or 12s a day without any of the other conditions applicable to the permanent Public Works Department. workers. The balance were scattered with other Departments " or local bodies, but all were exempt from participating in award condition? ■ by a clause inserted in the I-C. and A. ."Act:Which we removed at the first opportunity. , - „ • "It will be seen from these remarks, , • said Mr.. Armstrong, "that there was ' every 'justification for continuing to ' show these men with the unemployment figures, but long before September, 1937, when the practice was dis- > continued, the position had entirely • changed, as all full-time workers, whether or not subsidised from the Employment Promotion Fund, were en•gaged Tinder recognised standard conditions determined in accordance with the • laws of - the country. A DOUBLE CHALLENGE. "Now it was noticed from the speech •of the Leader of the Opposition, the ,Hon. A. Hamilton, that he was indulging in offering challenges to the Prime .Minister. May I suggest a double challenge to Mr, Hamilton: (1) That he cannot find proof of a single person .classed as full-time employed assisted .Irom the employment funds at the time of the election who was in receipt of full standard award conditions; and (2) that it is impossible for him to show that there are any excluded from the unemployment figures .today who are not fully employed under, recognised trade union conditions. It would be no more correct to show these men as unemployed today, mere-' ly on the ground that finance in some degree has been provided for their em. ployment from'the Employment Promotion Fund, which is a revenue account, than it would be to class all Highway Board men as unemployed their work is financed largely from a tax revenue account. FULL-TIME FIGURES. ' ".While, therefore, it is a fact that figures relating to men in full-time employment subsidised from the employment promotion fund have not been published with the figures of registered unemployed since September, 1937, I must emphasise that the present method of. publication, which excludes full-time figures, is the same as that introduced by the previous Administration in September, 1935. I have shown that the full-time figure of 21,267 which, was excluded at that particular time should not have been excluded because those men were still essentially relief workers. "Regarding .the expenditure of money from tne Employment Promotion Fund and the reduced number of men remaining without employment, I ■. would emphasise that the Act as drawn up by ( the previous Government anticipated the creation of employment as a first charge on the fund and only to pay sustenance when employment could not be created. Following that principle, which was laid down by the previous Government, but not acted upon to any great extent, useful employment has been found on worthwhile work, financed partially from the Employment Promotion Fund, with the Public Works Department and through local bodies. Surely that is the proper course to adopt pending the opportunity for industry to absorb the surplus labour."