THRIFTY WORKERS PENALISED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 5 August 1931, Page 6

THRIFTY WORKERS PENALISED

UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF •V * V *■'/' / 1 ••• CHANGE IN REGULATIONS URGED ''lt is a penalty on thrift,” declared a member of the Christchurch Citizens’ Unemployment Committee whon the rule laid-down by the Unemployment Board that men with savings could not be given relief work was discussed (reports the "Times”). The committee, which was favourable to a change in the rule, left Mr P. R. Climie, one of the three members of the new board, with the task of representing the committee’s views to the board. The committee approved of a motion that unemployed returned soldiers who had saved their war gratuities should not thereby be prejudiced in their application for relief work. The matter was brought up by Mr J. W. Beanland, who cited the case of a -man and wife who, by their diligent thrift, hud saved a few hundred pounds, the income from which was not sufficient to keep them. They, had not been to a picture theatre for five years, and had saved every penny. Soon they would bo in the same position as the penniless people. Mr G. Lawn stated that persons who used it savings bank account for purposes of accumulating enough'money to pay their half-yearly interest bills should not have that counted against them; BAR AGAINST MARRIAGE Mr R. J. Ecroyd: It is a penalty oh thrift, especially in, the case of young people desirous of getting ‘married. Their funds are being exhausted .and, as they are being prevented front being’ married, this is a check to the demand for houses. Some national and local scheme should be provided for giving work to everyone at the full rate of wages. Fpr every 50,000 m6n unemployed, the country is losing £10,000,000 worth of work annually. Funds would be created by the work which the unemployed were, able to do. Mr T. L. Drummond cited the case of a returned soldier who had saved his gratuity of £ll7 until it, with other funds, now gave him a little less th/m £2OO in the' bank, •• which money was preventing him from obtaining relief work. The board’s rule .was a tax on thrift. Those who had saved could not get work, whereas men who might have pauperised themselves by spending their money on drink could obtain, employment.

"The regulation is certainly a penalty on thrift,” declared Mr W. E. Leadley, a member of the old Unemployment Board. "No board, however, could exist if its expenditure exceeded its income. If men with savings are admitted the unemployment figures will rise from 47,000 to 60,000. If two men were out of work, and one had nothing and the other £2OO, to,whom should work be given? The old board had an annual income of a million and a quarter, whereas the new board will have two and a half millions annually.” BOYS UNDER THE AGE Mr G. Maginness urged that something should be done for . boys who were under the age at which relief work could be given. | A training camp at Burnham was suggested by Mr J. W. Crampton. The’ young nien could keep in repair the roads | in the vicinity. “Something will have to be done to keep the boys under eighteen out of serious mischief,” stated Mrs A. I. Fraer. Mr Leadley said that the new board had power to set up specialisation committees, and it was almost certain that these would be appointed for land set-

tlement and women’s work. The urgency of the problem, of finding work for boys made it worthy of consideration by a special committee. That any great improvement in the position would have to come along the lines of greater development of the secondary industries was the contention of Mr F. L. Hutchinson, another member of the old board. He said that prosperity had come to all countries whicli had brought about an industrial era for themselves.