WIVES OF UNEMPLOYED

Evening Star, Issue 21220, 29 September 1932, Page 8

WIVES OF UNEMPLOYED

FACTORY WORK INVESTIGATED MEN'S RELIEF BEING REDUCED OPPOSITION TO DEPARTMENTAL REGULATION Challenge is beitig issued to the implied edict of the Unemployment Board that a conscientious, hard-working woman who endeavours to supplement the family income (impoverished by the .unemployment of her husband) by working in factories and at other tasks,; should be compelled to maintain her. husband by her efforts, despite the fact that he is willing to work, and does work, but at rates which do not allow of provision for other than bare necessities. A grave sociological retrogression, it is claimed, is an effect of the Unemployment Board’s regulations that relief issued to unemployed shall bo based on the family income. To ameliorate the effects of an existence such as must be suffered by dependence on relief wages of the men, wires have returned to work which they followed in their, single days. When the Labour Department ascertains that the income is being augmented, the relief extended to the husband is reduced. In effect, the women arc being asked to keep the men, a policy degrading to the mep, : and against an age-old principle that it is the duty of an able-bodied man to win the bread for his family. Considerable feeling is-now being aroused in New Zealand against any regulation which acts against any woman who is inspired to assist her home, or which has the effect of making men dependent on women.

The ‘ Star’s ’ Auckland correspondent telegraphs as follows:

“ An official of the Labour Depart* ment in Auckland has commenced taking a tally of the number of women, wives of relief workers, who are employed in factories. As usual, no information can be gathered from the officials as to why the tally is being taken,and those women who are working to augment the small earnings of their husbands on relief are somewhat concerned. It is felt that the Labour Department would not act unless at tho request of tho Unemployment Board, and the very fact of a tally being taken would seem to indicate that consideration is being given to a reduction in the amount of relief work to be given to men whose wives are in employment.” ... Reticence, however, is not being displayed in the Dunedin office ot the Labour Department. Without hesitation. the officer in charge (Mr G. H. Lightfoot) answered inquiries by a ‘ Star ’ reporter. The tally of relief workers’ wives m employment had been practically completed in Dunedin, said Mr Lightfoot.The circumstances of every applicant for relief work were investigated, and the information placed before the local Unemployment Committee before the men were classified for work. Classification was based on the number or dependents and the family income. Relief rations were' also issued on tho same basis. This policy had been followed from the inception of the new relief scheme, said Mr Lightfoot. On filing their applications, the men gave pertain particulars as to their condition and income. All their statements had been inquired into. The great majority of the men had been very honest ; but in one or two cases necessary information had been withheld. When it was found that the wife was supplementing the income the husband was reclassified for relief work. . , The investigations, said Mr Lightfoot, had been proceeding for some time, and there was nothing new m the Auckland inquiry. The department now possessed a more complete record of the positions of the men under its control. This is what Miss Cossey, secretary of various female workers’ unions m Auckland, , has-to say about the regulation:—“Any move which may mean that a wife has to work for her husband is degrading. I don t know just what the move is, but the female workers now pay the ‘ dole,’ and get nothing in return. ■ . , , “ In any case, I think the officials of the Labour Department have certain duties to perform. They should confine themselves to inspecting the sanitary conditions of factories, the arrangements made for the comfort of employees, and space, and not be sent round to find out which women have husbands working two or three days a week on relief. If it is intended to reduce the husbands’ earnings on relief because the wife is working m a factory, it simply means that she has to keep him. It will be a sorry state of affairs, and a poor advertisement for the country, which, I think, is worso off than anv other country at present. Commenting on the regulation, Mrs William Herbert to-day stated: ‘The men on relief work are earning little enough, and the only thing we can do is to press for increased wages for them, so that no necessity will exist for their wives to go out to work. 1 do not think many married women in Dunedin are working m factories, and those women who are working would not offer their services to tho labour market unless they were compelled to do so. I agree With Miss Cossev that a woman should not be forced to keep a man who is willing and able to work, but when their husbands’ incomes have been insufficient many women, when released from home lies, have resumed work, and thus edu. eated their children and built their homes.” __