FARMERS ASKED TO HELP

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 16 April 1932, Page 5

FARMERS ASKED TO HELP

EASING UNEMPLOYMENT appeal mads; by board for COOPERATION An appeal to farmers of Canterbury to make a vigorous response to the Unemployment Board's efforts to place (lie unemployed in useful occupations was made by Mr I’. R. (Tunic, a member of the Unemployment Board, in a letter to the General Committee of the Canterbury A. and P. Association (reports the “Times”). Mr Climie said that increased productivity was the keystone of industrial regeneration, and the farmers must play a prominent part in this work. They had a more definite responsibility in this direction than other classes of the community. There were absolutely no restrictions to the class of work that could be undertaken by the relief workers. The one condition was that they must be additional to men already employed. RELIEF SCHEMES OUTLINED The letter then outlined the details of the 4A and MB relief schemes, which were principally concerned with development work on farms. Under scheme 4A the board paid to married men engaged on farms a subsidy of 20s per week, and to single men 10s per week, accommodation to be provided by the farmer. The period of engagement was from four weeks to twenty-six weeks. Scheme 4B covered contract work on farms. In this case the board paid 33 1-3 per cent, of the labour cost of a contract, the maximum amount payable on any contract being £75. A farmer could enter into several separate ' contracts on this basis. The contracts arranged under scheme 4B totalled 998, and they provided employment for 2192 men. There was the need for transferring the men engaged in non-productive work under the No. 5 scheme to tasks of a reproductive nature. The great majority of the men were centred in the cities, and the questions of transportation, food and accommodation appeared to be impossible to decide. To a great extent the difficulties had been overcome, and of the 38,000 men employed on rationed work on the streets of the cities and towns 10,000 had been transferred to work of the highest local and Dominion value on the land. Some of the work they were doing comprised land drainage, general land development, back-block roads, river protection, afforestation, reclamation, and other developmental work. The rationing rules of scheme 5 had been modified to allow of the continuous employment of men for periods equivalent to the ration of relief they would ordinarily receive in a fourweekly period. At the expiration of such continuous employment the men were required _to stand down for the remainder of the period. This arrangement had permitted many local bodies to undertake land drainage, river protection work, afforestation and work on back-block ropuls, by providing accommodation on the job and thus reducing transport costs to a minimum. VARIATIONS The board had invoked the co-opera-tion of local unemployment committees and local bodies for the employment of scheme 5 workers on farms where the farmer was unable, because of the depression, to find the cost of employing additional labour. In doing such work for farmers it would be permissable for the local body to obtain from the faryier a contribution sufficient at least to reimburse it for any outlay on supervision, transport, etc. The farmer would even make himself responsible for supervision, insurance, transport, and perhaps accommodation for short periods. The variation of the rationing rules of the scheme could be arranged to suit individual circumstances, or the worker could agree to put in a full week's work in return for his usual weekly ration of relief, plus food and accommodation and perhaps a small additional cash payment from the farmer. Any reasonable arrangement of this nature would be allowed, provided expenditure was kept within the allocation of funds made to the centre, and on condition that the ordinary employees on the farm were not displaced by relief workers. FARMERS’ DTFFIULTY Mr If. E. Perryman stated that it was the cost of keeping the men in food and providing lodgings that prevented many farmers from engaging relief workers. There was any amount of work that could be done if the men could take their own tents to the farms and provide their own meals. Mr F. Coop said that he was a member of a local body which had established camps for relief workers at Little River and Motukarara. The men were working forty hours a wedk for 37s (id, and were doing good work. Some trouble had arisen when agitators entered the camps and induced the men to ask for more pay. This difficulty, however, had been overcome. The Unemployment Board, Mr Coop said, was determined to get the men out of the city, and it needed the cooperation of the farmers to do this work. By giving their support the farmers would help the board, themselves, and the men. The chairman, Mr AY. J. Jenkins, said that it was up to all farmers to do what tliev could.