MINERS AND THE DOLE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19476, 11 May 1925, Page 13

MINERS AND THE DOLE.

MORE PAY FOR LESS WORK. FARMERS WHO DRAW BENEFIT. (From Ora Own Cohkespondent.) LONDON, March 24. A miner correspondent writing- to The Morning Post discloses an amazing state of affairs with regard to the dole. In the cases cited by this correspondent it appears that the less a man works the more he gets. “The fact is,” ho says, “that it does not pay the miner to work four days a week instead of three. Ho is penalised if ho does for his diligence. If the miner works but three shifts a week the dole will recompense him more generously than if he had worked one more day. Last Friday evening a miner told me of his fervent hope that there would be no work at the colliery the next day. He had already worked three shifts. If there was another shift for him on the Saturday it meant a loss to him, for he would forfeit his claim to the dole.” Had he worked on the Saturday his income would have been £2 2s Bd. As the pit was not open on the Saturday his income was £2 5s fid. “Do not think,” the correspondent goes on to say, “that this slate of things is not realised. It is, to the full—by the Communists. It is a splendid object-lesson, which they are striving to drive home throughout the whole of this region. They are insisting thot this is merely a sample of the delights to come when the Red Flag waves over this island. Is it any wonder that a groat 6ody of the miners, faced with this evidence, are inclining to the extremists? “Tliis is one of the results of the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act by the Sock list Government last year. The Socialists increased the dole, for tho man to 18s per week, left tho wife’s allowance at 5s per week, and granted weekly payments of 2s for each child. Short-timo at tho coalPelds also contributes to this curb ous result. Miners who loso one or two days per week have no claim, for tho dole. Three days must bo lost in any week before the applicant can draw the State aid. How it pays to work throe days only each week is demonstrated above. SECONDARY OCCUPATIONS. “ But is this the only profit which the idle miners make? It is not. Many of the miners have secondary occupations—insurance agents, spare-time agonta, chimneysweeps, fried fish shop assisitants, milkmen, masons, carpenters, tailors, watch and clock jobbers, boot and shoe repairers, hawkers, and so on. So the miners, having worked their throe shifts for the week, turn to other occupations, and, while drawing the dole, supplement their income by varied amounts. “Two instances will suffice. I have come across tho case of a farmer-minor. As a farmer ho wduld not be entitled to the dole. By entering oolliery employment he became eligible for unemployment benefit. Ho bos a farm of 20 acres, four milking cows, with pigs, poultry, etc. His colliery closed down. Nojv no draws tho dole as an unemployed miner—and finds ho has barely enough time—after visiting tho Registrar twice weekly to sign his name and receive his out-of-work pay—to atlend to his legitimate occupation in detail. ‘The second case is of a fanner who became a colliery surface-worker for a brief period. Ho possesses a 14-acre farm, some of it arable land. He has several livestock. His colliery closed. lie draws the dole and spends tho whole of the rest of his time making a reasonable living on his farm.” EFFECT ON TRADE. “The rule that the scale of relief must not exceed tho rate of the lowest paid labour is no longer observed,” says the Post in an editorial article. “Ail over the country men end women are refusing work for which the wages offered are not substantially higher than the scale of unemployment benefit. No. country in the world can afford so vast and unproductive an expenditure. Its effect is observable in every industry. Employers, employed and the Slate all contribute to make up the sum of unemployment _ insurance required, and that amount is a tax imposed upon industry, which, being added to the cost of production, is thence transferred to selling prices. It is partly for that reason that the cost of living is so high; and for tho same reason, British manufacturers are under-sold in markets abroad by their foreign competitors.”