UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 20586, 11 September 1930, Page 16

UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

TO THB JSDITOK. Sir, —I regret that in my answer to ‘•'Sympathiser” 1 made an error by saying dUs a quarter instead of a year. Having 7s tkl per quarter on my mind and dUs a year, 1 just simply got into reverse, although 1 was quite conversant with the lacts. As tor “ Sympathiser ” saying he is not looking lor notoriety, i think he must be. When a person makes such accusations against, another he looks for it. Surely he does not expect to be allowed to explode his mind against others to the extent he did without someone taking up the defensive. As for the big man not being in the squabble, he is always in it. That stands to reason under the present system. When the worker comes to pay 7id per week to the unemployment fund, so much per week for life insurance, so much for the upkeep of Ids lodge, hia union, etc. ? even it in steady employment, he hnds himself very heavily taxed when pay day arrives, and an ordinary labourer with a family can save very little. If he does he must forgo all the little luxuries of life, which are in reality his birth rights. Tie is the direct producer, so surely he is entitled to a taste of them. As for not having a lot of distributing offices, I agree with him there; but I have been in almost daily touch for some months past ■vyith the Labour officials,. and I have never yet heard a person advised not to pay his, or, her rent.—l am, etc., M. Andrew. September 10.