RELIEF WORK SYSTEM.

Evening Star, Issue 21511, 8 September 1933, Page 3

RELIEF WORK SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your leader of September 6 on the above system criticises my letter, in conjunction with other comments. However, towards the end of your leader you write: “The only real case for a dole without work is that tho fund would go further, spent in that way.” You make a proviso that some firms might have to add more men to tho unemployed as a result of their avenue of supplying materials to the present scheme being cut off. This, of course, may - or may not happen, but as to tho unemployed getting more nioney to spend there can be no doubt whatever. This is the main claim 1 have held to all along, and one that cannot be refuted, unless by your further contention that “ tho relief worker now can maintain his pride by doing as well as ho can the work which, through no fault of his own, he is unable to choose. A sheer dole would deprive him of that title to selfrespect.” J would like to ask this question; What difference would there be between a worker not now required in industry having leisure (seeing that those workers in employment subscribe most of this nioney, etc.), and a retired business man or farmer member of any other calling living on tho surplus profits he has amassed by netting for his own personal use the difference between what he pays his workers in wages and other costs and what he has left? Does such a man lose his self-respect? I think not; at least I have not heard any outcry against such persons, and why level a charge against the worker because of a system that prevents him from procuring bis needs, in a land that wo are told flows with milk and honey? However, the solution lies with those who have to undergo the suffering. Let the workers see to it that they take a more direct interest in their own affairs and not leave it to the other dole drawers to do it for them.— l am. etc.. P. Neilson.

September 7. [Wo might pursue Mr Neilson’s inquiries further and ask: Why should anybody work for what he received, arid how long would a system last in which nobody did so; and how would such a system agree with the first part of Mr Neilson’s principle, quoted by him at other times, “ from each according to his capacity to each according to his needs”?—Ed. E.S.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—With all duo respect to the mentality and experience of the writers who complain of the small percentage of energy put into the work by the workers on No. 5 scheme,. I would draw their attention to the fact that the filling in of tho application form for relief work reduces a former willing and conscientious worker 50 per cent, in energy. Tho organisation and supervision by inexperienced supervisors reduces him another 30 per cent. He thou compares tho amount of energy given by men on full time and full pay, working for tho same local body. He sees the same organisation, methods, and supervision, drops back another 10 per cent., and says “Why worry?”—l am, etc.,

Omi Surancee

September 8