UNEMPLOYMENT

Evening Star, Issue 21640, 8 February 1934, Page 6

UNEMPLOYMENT

STANDARD RATE OF WAGES DISCUSSED BY MOSGIEL COUNCIL Hero and there in public bodies attempts have been made to return to the practice of paying standard wages for Borough Council necessary works. At last night’s meeting of tho Mosgiel Council a motion was moved to pay the standard wage, but opinion was divided. The mover of the motion maintained that a line should bo drawn between relief works and necessary works —the former to be the responsibility of the Unemployment Board and the latter- the council’s. The mover, however, got no further than a seconder to liis motion.

Cr Frew moved the following motion, notice of which had been given;—“That in future labour employed by tho Mosgiel Borough Council for ordinary maintenance work bo paid the standard rate of wages.” Cr Frew said the committee must have decided what it wished in the matter. He maintained that the council should pay full wages for necessary work. Though he had agreed ,to the present method up till now and shared the responsibility for it, he felt it was time that a change was made. If the public bodies in New Zealand would adopt his suggestions the task of the Unemployment Board would be considerably lessened. He had given the matter mature consideration. By placing himself in the unemployed man’s position he had been helped to come to the decision. The unemployed worker thought as much of his wife, family, and home as anyone did, and if the council would adopt theso suggestions a fair number of homes would benefit. Measures had been adopted, such as the mayor’s fund, to give temporary relief, and such had been appreciated. The finances were good, and ho felt that there were no “ lions in the path ” to prevent the motion being carried. Cr Stevens endorsed the proposer’s remarks and seconded the motion. Cr Hartstongo said the council’s policy had been to help the unemployed by using tho labour on useful work. He wanted more information as to what effect tho motion would have on the finances. Was it the duty of the council to initiate this change—to take the burden off the Unemployment Board-and place it on the ratepayers? The Government should be made to increase the allocation. The intention of the motion could he kept in view when necessary work had to be done. He intended to vote against the motion. Cr Frew, in reply, said that the council had always been able to pay its way and pay full wages in the past. They had a price for gravel at 9d a yard. To follow that line, prevented local carters getting work. Then there were sewer extensions, which in past years had always been paid for at standard rates. These works were the council’s responsibility, not the Unemployment Board’s. If local bodies could agree to it, the work of the board would be lessened. There were certain works which were not necessary works. These could be performed by unemployed labour. Tins year the rates were lower, there had been a reduced allocation, and about £3OO was still in hand to complete the year now closing. It had been said at a public meeting that it was degrading to see men and women go to a relief depot for assistance. To that remark councillors present had said “ Hear, hear.” In his opinion it was more degrading for a council or an individual to use unemployment funds for necessary works. He felt if he did not move the motion he was aiding those who wore so degrading themselves. Cr Hartstonge said the council must take each case as it arose on its merits. The present method was the most workable. At Christmas time the council had supplemented the funds available by a vote of £6O or £7O. It could not run ahead of itself. Tho council must use common sense and not tie its hands. He had every possible sympathy with the unemployed, but they had to remember that there were limitations to their finances. They had to consider both sides. The mayor and Cr Smeaton expressed the opinion that to have some unemployed on works at standard rates and some on relief rates would cause discontent, and it would be preferable to continue as at present. The motion on being put was lost, only the mover and seconder voting for it. The secretary of the Municipal Association of New Zealand wrote to the council in reply to the council’s letter that the matter of reduced allocations had come before the Executive Committee recently, when it was decided that this was a matter for individual action by the councils of the localities affected. —Deceived. The Mayor of Dunedin (tho Kev. E. T. Cox) wrote to the council regarding a combined meeting of local bodies and other organisations in connection with unemployment allocations.—The deputy mayor (Cr Stevens) was appointed to represent the council.

NO STRIKE

[Pin Uwitbd Prwb Amociatiow.] CHRISTCHURCH, February 7. A decision not to call a strike of unemployed in Canterbury was made at a meeting of the Council of Action this evening. It was decided also to disband the.council which bad been interested in the recent strike ballot, and to seek affiliation with tho National Unemployed Workers’ Movement.