RELIEF WORKERS’ WAGES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20867, 6 November 1929, Page 10

RELIEF WORKERS’ WAGES

UNION SECRETARY’S ALLEGATIONS.

GOVERNMENTS POLICY CRITICISED.

“TENDING TO CREATE LOAFERS.”

(Special to Dailt Times.)

WELLINGTON, November 5,

According to the general secretary of the Workers’ Union the wages earned by men on unemployment relief works amount to a sum nearer 7s n day than 14s as is supposed. The policy of the Public Works Department is described as tending to create loafers, while the report that men are leaving farms to go on relief works is scouted. It is stated that farm work is more attractive.

Mr A. Cook, general secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, referring to a statement made in the House of Representatives by the Acting-Leader of the House (Mr G. W. Forbes) when outlining what had been -done by the Government said: “ This on the surface sounds remarkably good to all but the unfortunates who have been forced to accept work under the Government’s brutal relief work system, a system which the United Government is fully exploiting in order to lower the workers’ standard of living throughout New Zealand, and it is high time that some light should be thrown on the poverty, misery and suffering that the wives and children of the breadwinners who are forced to work on relief works are being subjected to. Hundreds of workers sent to relief works are told by persons in charge of the labour bureaux that the rate of pay is 14s a day, and in this respect I note Mr Forbes uses the following phrase: ‘ Unskilled workers who are employed on day work are being paid the standard wages of 14s per day, and when placed on co-operative contracts the contract rates which are being paid arc such as would enable a man of fair ability working industriously to earn 14s per day.’ The sting in the tail of this nicqjy worded clause is not generally known to the unfortunate workers before putting in a month on relief works. Then they receive a rude awakening and often find themselves being paid nearer to 7s than 14s per day. Hero is an illustration, and I have proof to back my statement. Thirty men were recently sent from one of the large centres to road work. These men worked for a month under the cooperative contract system and made 9s 9d per day. They lost on an average one day a week on account of wet weather. It cost them £1 12s Cd per week each for food and clothing, leaving a balance to send to their wives and families of 10s 3d per week. These men wore paid lid per yard for shifting blue pug and papa rock. They were issued with shovels and picks only and denied such tools .as hammers, gads, crowbars, etc. The best gang of experienced roadmen in New Zealand could not make wages working in this class of material under such conditions.” Mr Cook asked whether Mr Forbes or Mr Ransom wo'uld deny Ms statement, which was only one instance. Yet one found men like Mr Forbes boasting about the United Government’s achievements, and his statements went unchallenged by all political parties. “ The present Public Works policy tends to create an army of loafers, and for this state of affairs the men are not to blame,” said Mr Cook. “ This is the position. The men are not allowed to make good wages. If a good gang of men get together on a co-operative contract with a fair price and work in together and give of their very best, probably making from 25s to 30s per shift, their rates are immediately reduced. Officials of the department have told parties of men on hundreds of occasions to go steady unless they want their wages reduced. When the Government closed down the Rotorua Taupo railway works and the Palmerston North deviation works the men were transferred to the Gisborne railway construction works. The married men were promised that the provision of accommodation would be speeded up and their families would be able to join them at an early date. Ever since that time those men have been struggling to feed and clothe their wives and children and keep the two homes going. This was in spite of the fact that continuous representation had been made to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works.

“There is yet another matter by which the Public Works men are suffering the worst kind of persecution,” continued Mr Cook. “The New /Zealand Workers’ Union has an agreement with the Public Works Department. This agreement is supposed to cover all men working on what is termed standard works. It was referred to by Mr Coates as a gentleman’s agreement (and it isonly fair to say that during the time Mr Coates was Minister of Public Works and later Prime Minister it was honoured accordingly). This agreement gives certain concessions to the men, and as a reward for good conduct and efficient sendee after two years’ continuous service allows for a fortnight’s holiday on pay. Men have taken a pride in giving of their best in order to qualify for this privilege, and are now shocked to find they are being dismissed from standard works and placed on relief works and all agreement privileges filched from them.”

Mr Cook said that while it was admitted that a farm labourer works long hours on seven days a week for a small wage, his position was infinitely better than it could possibly be on relief works and any who did leave it to take on those works would very soon be going back to the farm job, bad as the conditions were. "Let them pay a decent wage to the farm labourer and he won’t look for relief works,” he said.

WAGES AND CONDITIONS,

REPLY TO CRITICISM,

STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF

PUBLIC WORKS,

(From Oub Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, November 5,

Allegations by the general secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union (Mr A. Cook) that the wages earned by men on unemployment relief works amounted to a sum nearer 7s a day than 14s, as was supposed, and that the conditions of employment were brutal were replied to by the Minister of Public Works (Mr E. A. Ransom) in the House of Representatives to-day. The matter was raised by Mr P. Fraser (Labour member for Wellington Central), who asked the Minister whether (1) he had noticed a newspaper article headed “ Relief Works Policy—Government's Brutal System— Strong Criticism by Union Secretary ”; and (2) whether he would take steps to have the alleged deplorable conditions remedied.

The Minister replied that he had not had time to peruse the article in question, but he considered the language used was such as would only come from an official connected with the Workers’ Union, and not from the men engaged cn the relief works. While ho did not take any exception to the statements in

view of the source from whjcb they came, he would have every case of alleged hardship or injustice inquired into. It was accepted right throughout the Dominion that conditions in the relief camps to-day were better than they, had ever been,' and that on the average tho wages paid were in keeping with the promise given by the Prime Minister. It was quite impossible under the co-operative system to arrive at a uniform rate of pay. Moreover, it was not desirable that that should be done. He gave an emphatic denial to the statement that the sum earned was nearer 7s a day than 14s. The Government endeavoured to fix a rate which would enable a man working industriously to earn the standard rate of pay and enable him to keep a home. That practice existed right throughout New Zealand.

. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr J, G. Coates) : No, not right throughout the country.

The Minister said that complaints had been made that when standard works were completed men had been transferred to relief works with the consequent danger of losing their privileges. The question was not one of losing privileges, but one of employment. It was far better for the men to be given relief work than no Work at all. The Government was anxious to provide conditions that would meet with the satisfaction of the men. Complaints had also been made that men had been transferred from Palmerston North to other work. In that case it had ' .en agreed that the cost of transferring the men should be borne by the Government. Application was then made for the department to transfer whole families. It was not possible to do that. Very generous treatment had been meted out to the men, and any case lof hardship or grievance would he fully investigated.

Proceeding, the Minister said that the article in question contained a statement concerning the earnings of some of the men which no doubt was correct, although he had no definite information to that effect. 44 1 can state definitely that the basis on which relief workers are employed is exactly the same as that which has been in force up till now on standard works, and is still in force on these works,” said Mr Ransom. “If at the same price for work undfer the same conditions one man makes 9s 9d while thousands of others make over 14s, it can only be assumed that there is approximately that amount of difference <l n fk® earth-moving capacities of the respective men. The Labour Department’s instructions are to advise all men going on to our works that they will be i>aid by results on a basis on which they should with reasonable diligence be able to earn 14s per day. It is entirely incorrect to suggest that the Government is making any effort to reduce the basis standard of earnings. The question of extending to relief workers the privileges now given to the men on our standard works will receive the serious consideration of the Government, but it must be understood that the relief works are of a purely temporary nature, merely instituted to tide over the difficulties of the moment, and as the privileges granted to standard workers depends largely on continuous sendee they would not in any case accrue to men who are employed for only a short period.”