The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, "Luceo Non Uro." SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1933. RELIEF METHODS

Southland Times, Issue 22158, 28 October 1933, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, "Luceo Non Uro." SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1933. RELIEF METHODS

It is hardly sound to declare that Mr Hargest’s reference to the Duck Creek work was designed to confuse that style of working with the Southland County Council’s plan. Mr Hargest cited the Duck Creek system to show that when this was introduced there was a strike against it, and that after the men found that the plan had real advantages. Mr Marchant says that the strike was directed against the declaration that men who refused the contract system at Duck Creek would not be permitted to take relief work elsewhere. Our recollection of this business was that the scheme was declared to be bad and it was stated that the contracts set were beyond the capacity of the men assigned to them. Statements were made on behalf of the men that this was so, and this, it was stated at the time, was the root of the opposition. When there arose the sign of more or less organized opposition and the threat that these contracts would not be taken up, there came the announcement that those who refused to try the contract system would be debarred work elsewhere. At this length it is easy to confuse the reasons for the strike, but undoubtedly the public statements made on behalf of the men at the time declared that the contracts were opposed because the men could not accomplish what was set them. That prophecy was not borne out by subsequent events and to-day the Duck Creek work continues on the contract system, and a little while ago we were informed that relief workers were quite keen to go on to the Duck Creek job. At the back of Mr Hargest’s reference to this work was the idea that these changes are received suspiciously, and that when the experience of them is sufficient many of the objections are abandoned. The discussion in the House on the Imprest Supply Bill found the Minister’ of Employment taking the stand that while criticism of the Unemployment Board was easy, the board was tackling an extremely difficult task and was doing much more than the critics suspected. That statement is correct. Much criticism is heard and this may give the impression that the bulk of the relief workers are intensely dissatisfied; but it must be remembered that there is a large body of men on relief work who do not participate in these expressions of dissatisfaction, who are making the best of adverse conditions, and are adding, through extra work, to the relief pay they receive from the Unemployment Fund. To-day the object of the Unemployment Board is to facilitate the transfer of men to industrial activities, and a good deal is being done in this direction, despite the fact that almost every move the board makes provokes a new outburst of criticism. The other day the Mayor of Invercargill had a little experience of this criticism in connection with the Richmond Grove work, and his answer was that if what the City Council had done to provide extra payments to the men on the scheme was not welcomed, it could be withdrawn. That remark seemed to apply the closure to the objections. Criticism must be expected. It is natural that men who are on relief work should be eager for something better, but the difficulties in connection with unemployment relief are great and they are accentuated by the fact that all the time the criticism seems to regard these difficulties lightly.