THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

Northern Advocate, 2 May 1933, Page 8

THE MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.

(To the Editor.) .Sir,— In the present contest for the Mayoralty, considerable misrepresentation is being indulged in by those w T ho would persuade the workers to vote for Mr Jones, masquerading as “the workers’ friend” against Mr Finch. I appeal to all workers to study carcfnlL

the merits and demerits of each candidate before voting. The only charge laid .against Air -Finch, and I admit it would be serious enough if true, is that he is a supporter of wage reduction, and the.recent cuts in salaries of borough employees are cited in an en-

deavour to justify this argument. I am repeatedly told that men with only £2 10/ per week —the man on the rubbish tip being pointed out as “the horrible example” —have suffered the cut. I state definitely that this is not so, as not one member of the outside stall has had his wages reduced at all. Despite the moaning of the carters and surfacemen about the injustice inflicted on them by the recent wage cuts, I state definitely that their wages have not been reduced the slightest degree; they are still being paid at the rate of £4 4/ per week for a week of 47 hours. The only employees Avho suffered any rqduction w r ore those in the office, who ■aie the best paid of any office staff in Whangarei. The salaries there are: Town Clerk, £491 per annum; Electrical Department engineer, £475, plus £7O ear allowance, totalling £545; assistant Town:Clerk, £350; Borough Engineer, £4OO and free car. These arc a few of the salaries since the last cut. Considerable prominence w r as given to the faet that “a highly qualified aeeount'ant ”'was being paid’lesVthan pick and shovel men. The facts are that the “highly qualified accountant” is a junior clerk, a single man, in the receipt of £2OO per annum since the cut. Again, the poorly paid typists w T ere cited as being the victims of injustice, but these same poorly' ■ 'paid typists receive £l4O per annum since the cut. The Mayor is very concerned

about the typists receiving only £l4o' a year, but he did not kick up a fuSs when the highly trained nurses in the Whangarei Hospital had their salaries reduced to £7O per annum. I noticed that at the mooting on Wednesday night the Mayor dodged dealing with wage cuts, knowing full well that there has been no injustice done, to anybody. I repeat that not one of the outside staff has been reduced even a single penny. I know the workers are being told otherwise, and I say to' those who do not believe me; demand positive proof that the outside staff has been reduced. If .such proof is available, every borough employee would be only too willing to tell the world. During the last couple of years, I have been associated with Mr Jones on the “Employment ■Committee” and my experience of him on that committee, has convinced me that it would be distinctly against the interests of the unemployed to have him returned as Mayor for a further period. Last April, when relief workers in Whangarei w r ere receiving only 18/1 1 for men with two children and less, and £1 8/ for men with large families, they tried every available method to procure a-better allocation, and wore told .repeatedly by the Mayor that he could not get any improvement. I then went down to Auckland to interview Mr 'Slaughter, and put the position clearly before him. ATr Slaughter assured me that he was unaware that our allocation w T as. so low, and he stated, that no complaint.

had ever been sent him from Whangarei, excepting from the unemployed themselves. It was agreed that a representative should be sent from the Auckland office, to find out if conditions were as stated by me. This was done, and immediately our allocation was increased by 7/(5 a week per man, which also meant' an increase of about £IOO per week to the business people of whangarei. I will give you now the only other occasion on which we received an increase in our allocation, after suffering a drastic cut, but before doing so, I would mention that just twelve months ago, a large body of uni employed walked out of the Town Hall in protest against the conduct of Mr Jones. Today we have the ringleaders of that demonstration telling the. workers to vote for Mr Jones “the workers 7 friend.’-’ Have any of these same supporters ever done any of the unemployed the slightest bit of good? I say emphatically, no. The only benefits the unemployed have received have never even remotely been attributable to their efforts. Just prior to Christmas, relief workers in Whangarei were receiving 22/6 and £1 12/6 per week according to the number of children; of course, there was nothing at all fo r the fourth week. It was contended that this treatment was not on a par with that which other districts were receiving. All organisations interested in the unemployment question failed to secure an improvement and, as chairman of the. local Employment Committee, Mr Jones insisted that we were tee, Mr Jones insisted that we were getting the same as elsewhere, I then took the matter up and called a meeting of relief workers employed on the borough, pointing out to them that we had one chance, and that was to wake up the sleep walkers of the employment committee and the local bodies, per j medium of press publicity. The result I was that two, of us waited on the bor-

ongli-council and put up such a strong case' that the “Advocate’ ’ devoted a full page to our cause, and even the “Star'’ and “Herald” gave ns strong support. Councillors were amazed that their representatives on the Employment Committee had allowed things to come to such a point without asking for the assistance of the council, lor the purpose of securing heller conditions for local relief workers. W ithin a week, our allocation was raised fiom 22/fi and 32/0 to 30/ and £2; the maximum now is £2 2/0 and has been as high as £2 ;>/, I contend that had tin Mayor been really genuine in his desire to help the workers, the .allocation would never have been reduced to the low standard that we experienced prior to Christmas. During the week following our meeting with the borough council, the Mayor spent his time not in an endeavour to secure more money bnt in an endeavour to prove my I figures in reference to allocations in other districts wrong. In this respect lie failed signally. On no occasion has one single statement by me, relating tc unemployment, been shown to be incorrect. I have quoted these two occa-

sions on which I have secured extra allocations for Whangarei, simply to show the workers and the electors generally that I have fought hard for the workers of this town. I have come out openly and fought wage cuts, knowing full well that such action was not furthering my own candidature, but by so doing, 1. have '.shown that I was a real friend of the workers and consequently of the business people of this town. Is it then feasible to even suggest that I would support Mr Finch, as I am whole-heartedly doing, if he were an enemy of the workers'? It has been stated that the Labour Party is supporting Air .Tones’ candidature. This is incorrect. The Labour Party is supporting neither candidate, and could not support either, even if the party so desired. All members are free to please themselves, with the result that members of the Labour Party are to bo found on each side. I do not presume to say to the unemployed that they should follow' me blindly, but I do say that in view of the. fact that I am the only.one who has obtained any improvement in their conditions I have earned the right to ask them to seriously consider their action before allowing themselves to be bluffed into supporting the present Mayor. I am, etc. .1. H. BROWN.