RELIEF WORKERS’ PAY.

Southland Times, Issue 22345, 9 June 1934, Page 7

RELIEF WORKERS’ PAY.

To the Editor, Sir, —Your leader in this morning’s Times requires some comment. First allow me ,to state that the Relief Workers’ Organization are demanding the abolition of the “stand down week” —extra work to be provided—and paid for—during the week that the men

would ordinarily be standing down. Before the “stand down week” was reintroduced in Invercargill the men received a little more money so the Commissioner’s reply to me (dated February 22) “that the men suffered no pecuniary loss” was contradicted by a perusal of the pay sheets of the men concerned. Then Mr Bromley told the conference of local bodies that the local Certifying Officer had been retaining unexpended allocations in order to build up the allocation of the remainder of the men. The story of the expending of the “unexpendable” was contradicted by the Certifying Officer’s letter to me which stated as follows: —“When Scheme No 5 workers go off the register on to private work, or on to any other scheme the money allocated for that week under Scheme 5 MUST REMAIN UNEXPENDED AND BE RETURNED TO THE UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD AND MUST ON NO ACCOUNT BE DIVERTED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WORK FOR OTHER SCHEME 5 MEN . . .” The instruction was issued on January 12, 1933. So that’s that. Again I would point out that the Commissioner stated in his letter of February 22, “It would appear that the arrangement of work in each three weeks out of four best meets the requirements of the local bodies in Invercargill etc.” No mention of the Central Committee here, Mr Editor. Now let us see what the local bodies think of the stand-down week. At the conference of local bodies held in Invercargill on February 23 the following motion was carried unanimously:— “That the stand-down week system be discussed with a view to urging, the Government to abolish the same.” Now, Sir, the members of my organization are sick of the series of contradictory statements emanating from different representatives of the Unemployment Board and I shall close with the demands of the organization, which, by the way, were expressed by Mr G. Wraytt at the Hospital Board meeting as reported in this morning’s Times: “What the men want is pay for the extra' week at the same rate as for the other weeks.” The relief worker has no desire to be placed on sustenance—there is a close connection between subsidy, surplus and sustenance —and the organization shall continue to fight for standard rates of pay for all work perfoiTned every week in the month. It will be noted that the relief workers, like the other “lower animals,” require food, shelter and clothing during the week on which they have no work to go to. If a farmer failed to feed his horse during the time the horse was not reauired for work he would be brought to book; but with the relief worker, well . . .!—I am, etc., P. MARCHANT, Secretary, Relief Workers’ Organization. Invercargill, June 9, 1934.