UNEMPLOYMENT EELIEF

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17436, 7 April 1931, Page 2

UNEMPLOYMENT EELIEF

(To the Editor of the Herald). Sir,—Your leading article in last Thursday’s issue of the Herald contains interesting information on the above question. You state “that the Unemployment Hoard is itself largely to blame for the present unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the Minister expresses surprise at the rapid increase in the number seeking work through official channels, and apparently attributes the increase to the inauguration of the No. 5 scheme.” Sir, may I be permitted to draw attention to the fact that local bodies all over .New Zealand were loud in their protests at the Unemployment Board paying 14s per clay for relief work. I refer, of course, to the Unemployment Board’s initial efforts to relieve the then small army of unemployed, but when this No. 5 scheme was introduced the majority of the local bodies were not slow to take advantage of the scheme, especially when it was evident that the relief worker could not gain anything more than an existence, i.e. two days at 14s per day for the singlet men, three days at the same rate of pay for the married man with two dependants, and four days for the married man with four or more dependants, and certainly from tins writer’s point of view it is better than nothing, and at tlie* same time our local bodies are deriving some 'benefit from all this—at least apparently so; the cleaning of ditches and drains, and improvements of roads, have been the. main source for the absorption of the unemployed, but if would be very interesting to learn the cost of all this work. Have they received value for the money spent? In isolated cases, yes; io the majority, no! Why? hack of proper supervision in I lie first place, and certainly the fault does not lie at the door ol the engineer who has Ins 'usual routine of comity or borough work to attend to without being saddled with relief work schemes. Unfortunately lie and 1 members of the permanent stall are the “chopping blocks” of all and sundry, and to these officials falls the onerous duty of tax-collector, i.e. the levy. With regards to your remarks, sir, that there are some men drawing on the board’s funds and conserving their own capital, etc, that should also come under the heading of my previous remarks in the matter of supervision, 'but thef hlamo surely must fall on the shoulders of those members of otic local bodies (not paid officials) who were appointed to act as members, of the employment, boards in their respective districts. They, to the writer’s knowledge, have made little or no effort to ascertain the true position of each applicant, and undoubtedly members are drawing relief pay to which, according to the Unemployment Act, they are notr_ entitled, and the writer has no hesitation whatever in recommending tho members of our various local bodies to read your leader and to peruse

particularly the latter portion of it, and the writer, sir. congratulates you for fl true concise article on what is actually happening.-—Yours, etc., WAT-MOAN.