CALLOUS SACKING AGED WORKERS

Maoriland Worker, Volume 13, Issue 31, 1 August 1923, Page 9

CALLOUS SACKING AGED WORKERS

Ckistekireh City Fathers Boot -Loag Service Toilers

Labour Umbers' Strong Pretest

At the meeting of the Christchufch City Council on Monday of last week the Works and Sanitary Committee reported that it had given "careful consideration to the question of retiring a number of aged and infirm employees, and recommended that notice of the termination of their employment be given to fourteen men (says the "Lyttelton Times"). in the case of two men, aged sixty-four and sixty-five respectively, who had twenty-three and twenty-two years of service respectively, it was recommended that they be given three months' notice and three months' pay as retiring allowance. In the other cases the notice and allowance recommended were: Five men, with from ten to fourteen years- service, three months' notice and two months' pay; five men with four to five years' service, three months' notice and one month's pay; two men with two years' service, one month's notice. The age of the men affected range from seventy-two years to forty-one. None of the men, it was stated, would participate in the council's superannuation fund, as they did not join, although they had the opportunity to do so.

Councillor Winsor. moved that the report should be" adopted. Councillor F. R. Cooke (Labour) moved as an amendment, that the report should be referred back to the committee. He alleged that some of the information contained in the report was incorrect. Discussion was taken in committee. On resuming it was announced that the report had been adopted. Councillor H. T. Armstrong (La-, bour) said that as far as some of the men were concerned the only fault found with them was that they had become old in the service of the council. There was not another local body in New Zealand that would discharge men a callous jnannei as it was proposed these men should be discharged. He did not stand foi Inefficients, and possibly some of the men mentioned should be discharged, but they had no right to treat old servants in the manner proposed. There was more inefficiency at the council table than in any department among the council's employees. At least seven men on the list were obviously too old for their present jobs. They should be receiving a pension from the State. The position was that councillors had made up their minds that they were going to have a clearing out, -and they asked the officers to report upon the least efficient men. There was not a decent firm In the country that would not employ a certain number of inefficients when they had become inefficient in their service. The matter should go back to the committee for further consideration. Councillor F. R. Cooke said that a. mistake was being made. The policy of the councillors supporting this re- j j commendation was not so much tG weed out the inefficients as to scaro the others' into keeping up to the mark. Mistakes had been made in regard to the comments set against the names of some of the men. The matter should be considered from the humane viewpoint; They should take advantage of the imder-rate workers' permit. The policy was one of discharging a few men each year. BOSS'S ASSERTION* Councillor J. W. Beanland (Boss) protested against the. debate, being refiumed in open council.. Councillor Cooke was not right in saying that the men were being discharged to keep the others up to the mark. In reorganisation they had to hurt someone. The Works Committee was not wishing to do any men an injury. If they were to. do the easy thing they would let the matter slide. It was no use mincing matters —some of the council employees did not work. It was not fair to their good employees that they should keep on such men. The Works Committee should not have to pay away money for work srhich these men could not do. Councillor E. R. McCombs (Labour), moved that the committee go into the question of under-rate workers' per- . mits. Councillor A. W. (Boss) supported' the committee. They -we'rosi

doing unpleasant work wM-eh, ed to have been waiting some time to be done. There were one or twd cases that the committee he though would reconsider. If a man was net;:* «loing a fair _iing by the. City CoTm-| cil, it was not of mudh use taldngl him back by means of an under-rataj worker's permit. The Works *Coi_i mittee should be supported by everyman in the council who believed in efficient service.' r j Councillor C. Car-r (Labour) seconded the amendment. No drastic step should be taken without rurtner consideration. The men. were not due in all cases for the old age pension. BEACTIONAIUES' INCONSISTENCY. Councillor J. K. Archer said it was curious that the council should object to the under-rate workers' permit; for the Municipal Conference had' passed a remit urging that councils should have the right to do this sort of thing on their own initiative. It showed that some of the local bodies at least were in favour of meeting vtheir older employees half way, 'While he did not Wholly agree with the amendment he could not vote for the motion, which directed that all the men mentioned be discharged. Councillor W. H. Winsor suggested that the motion should be that the Committee have the power to ■proceed in the direction indicated. * The Mayor said the matter was covered by the suggestion he had made that the notices be given, and If any employee felt aggrieved he could make application to be heard by the committee. COMBINED AGAINST LABOUR. The amendment was defeated, and the motion for the adoption of the report was carried by ten votes to six, the voting being: — Ayes (10): Councillors Williams, McKellar, Beanland, Agar, O. W. B. Anderson, J. Anderson, Beaven, Winsor, and the Mayor. Noes (6): Councillors Armstrong, Cooke, McCombs, Howard, Carr, ani; Archer. """