SHARING RELIEF WORK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20819, 11 March 1931, Page 14

SHARING RELIEF WORK.

COMPLAINT ABOUT FARMERS.

PRACTICE NOT NEW.

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. Another complaint about the employment of farmers on relief works comes from the wife of an unemployed man. It is not possible to investigate this particular case but inquiry has been made among men who have been on relief works whether such abuses of the relief system were common. . One man in a group of three said he had not come across farmers receiving employment, but declared that if ho had done so he would not be 100 ready to pass jqdgment. "I reckon," he said, " that lots of settlers are as much ' up against it' as wo are and are entitled to a bit of work in their own districts.

"There is nothing new about this sort of thing. In New Zealand settlers starting from scratch havo had to go out to help to keep their farms, in the initial stages, anyway. Many would never have got on their feet but for county councils putting a bit of road work in their way in tho off season. Tho position is no different to-day, except that there aro not so many settlers starling on virgin country. "Even if times were better and no relief works were being created, farmers in every district not fully developed would be seeking jobs and contracts on the roads. I don't say that there are not farmers working who need the work much less than wo do, but you can't generalise. You've got to admit that a 'cocky' mortgaged up to the hilt for evei'ything is not far from poverty point." A Matter ol Degree. This man's mate would not agree. No matter how involved were the finances of a farmer, he said, lie still had a homo and he still had three meals a day. That being so, he was much better off than an unemployed man who rented a house and at the best could get only three or four days a week on relief work. From this they drifted on to other possible abuses of the system. Two stated for a fact that a superannuated Government servant had been on a relief job. Questioned as to how this could happen, one said that all a man had to do when ho reported at the bureau was to declare that he had had no work for two weeks. No inquiry was made as to his resources, although he believed that if such a case were reported the man would be paid off at once. To Work in His Own Car. Some fairly convincing evidence was supplied to indicate that some men on relief work are not by any means at the end of their resources. One man mentioned that on a job with him was a man who drove to it each day in his own car.

This incident suggested transport and one of the men said there was unnecessary expenditure on tram and bus fares. For instance, city residents would be engaged for their three or four days at Mount Roskill, while Mount Roskill residents camo to the city to look for jobs. Inquiry was made as to the common belief that poor value is usually given by relief gangs and that there is a tendency to spin out a job. "I'll admit that most of it is what a real navvy would call scratching," said one man. "I have no time for a 'lead-swinger,' but a lot of the men who previously had indoor occupations do not possess the knack'of using picks and shovels and they do not have the strength. I mated with a man who had been a watchmaker. Ho was a poor navvy, but lie certainly did his best and that is all one can expect in times like these." Another man who had not followed an occupation that kept him in good condition was mentioned. This man it was said did less work than any on tho job but was the most tired at the end of tho day. No Incentive For Casual Work.

These men agreed that tho system by which a man was disqualified from work for two weeks if ho got a casual job in addition to relief work was wrong. One said he know a man with a family of nine w)tf> would have been glad to put in a half-day gardening one. Saturday but could not do so because that earning would have caused him to lose his chance of the relief employment ration the following week. Whether such casual earnings are always reported is another story.

The man who had defended the rights of the struggling farmer to a share in tho work declared that ho would inform on no man. If a man got a day's work as well as tho relief ration in the week lie would say, 'Good luck to him.' All he was likely to earn was not enough to bring the week's income up to a living wage. "At tho same time," he added, "I would not stand for this superannuated servant getting a cut out of the work."