RELIEF WORK RATES OF PAY.

Hawera Star, Volume L, 27 August 1930, Page 4

RELIEF WORK RATES OF PAY.

Afore important at the moment than party prospects, as touched upon above, is the weakness of the Government, in relation to uncmploy'cd relief rates of pay. Tlic principle of paying full award rates for unnecessary' works, artificially created in order to provide work f or the unemployed, is a bad one; indeed, there is excuse for those who cast aside restraint when speaking of this (in the full knowledge of the economic waste and dishonesty' it engen-

ders) and describe it as vicious. No matter how much some people may have disliked the administration of Mr Coates’s Government, they will yet. have cause to remember that he consistently set his face against paying full award wages for relief works, on the grounds that such works should do no more than provide '‘relief,” so that every man engaged on them would be anxious to get back into full economic production. The soundness of that principle was twisted to make it appear that Reform had no sympathy with the distressed unemployed, with the result that Reform incurred the solid opposition of many Labour and near-Labour people. It- is not. difficult to see where the continuance of this “sop to Labour” pol-'

icy is leading the (Government. The country is being hard pressed to find the money necessary to carrying on unemployment relief, but still the Government is afraid to tell the people that they cannot forever eat their cake and have it,, too. The Government is casting around for every means to provide work for the unemployed, even to the extent of placing a flat tax on every male worker, whether he be labourer or merchant, but it is still “not game” to strike at the heart of the trouble by spreading its relief monies over the widest possible area. Apart altogether from the bad effect upon the county’s finances of giving a full loaf to the unemployed what time the rest of the community is being ask-

en 10 suDsist on sometmng less, tne reI lief works, at their present rates of pay, are exerting a bad influence on labour everywhere. A well-authenti-cated case of this came before our notice this week. A business in the North Island, employing over a hundred men, including a large proportion of married men with dependents, found

a row weeks ago that it was not paying expenses. Reluctant to throw more .men upon the labour market, it suggested that the men should consider three alternative proposals: (I) increase the output; (2) accept a reduction in wages; or (3) take their dismissal and allow the works to be closed. The company’s balance-sheet was produced and the men were assured that the owners were prepared to carry on without profit and certain safeguards were offered the workers against being

victimised in the owners’ interests. The men preferred to stand by “their rights, ’ ’ which gave them award wages, irrespective of the capacity of the industry to pay. The works were closed and the men thrown out of employment. When remonstrated with and asked to consider their dependents before making their final decision, the men reminded the owners that they could always get relief work at 14s a day and therefore saw no reason why they should work for less! This situation calls for no comment; the strangling nature of

award, conditions and the folly of a Government subsidising workers to ignore what should be their own best interests, are facts which are here only too sadly evident. But the question arises: How long is the country going ,to allow this state of affairs to continue? The need to-day in New Zealand is for worK, production and revenue, but that goal is a long way off attainment, so long as there is a disinclination on the part of the Government to face facts.