RELIEF WORKERS

Southland Times, Issue 22508, 16 February 1935, Page 10

RELIEF WORKERS

MARRIED MEN’S PAY REPRESENTATIONS TO COMMITTEE. Yesterday morning a deputation from the Southland Relief Workers’ Organization waited on the Unemployment Committee with the object of stating the objections held by relief workers to camps for married men unless the rate of pay was sufficient to enable the worker to keep himself and also maintain his dependents at home in an adequate way. The president of the organization (Mr D. Strathern) and the provincial secretary (Mr P. Marchant) represented the executive, and associated with them were Messrs F. W. Hanke and W. J. Middlemiss, the Gore representatives. The case was also argued by Mr D. McLaughlin, national secretary of the Union of Unemployed, from Wellington. The chairman of the Unemployment Committee (Mr John Gilkison) presided and his . Worship the Mayor and Mr L. A. Niederer, members of the committee, were present together with the certifying officer (Mr P. C. Weenink) and departmental officers. Mr Strathern introduced the deputation. Mr Marchant denied, after the discussion was under way, that he had acted as an agitator in inciting a strike at Duck Creek and he affirmed that if an independent investigation were made it would be found that there was nothing inconsistent in his attitude. “You made the statement that men at Te Anau cannot earn 10/6 a day,” said Mr Weenink. “I have stated that they can, and I repeat it. You yourself have worked under a system of which you don’t want the men at Gore to have the advantage. If, through your incitement, the men at Gore do not go to the Caroline-Josephville road job and as a result suffer privation, the responsibility will be on you and your organization.” Mr Marchant replied that Mr Weenink was confusing the question of co-oper-ative contracts with the principle of obliging married men to go to a camp at which they might ■ not be able to earn sufficient to keep themselves and their families. Mr Weenink stated that out of 84 gangs on the Te Anau job 77 had never earned less than 10/6 a day oyer a period of nine months, including a month of wet weather. The Mayor remarked that it was no use sending men up there who were not capable of earning that amount. Mr Strathern raised the point that for some months, owing to fluctuations in pay, the wives and families at home would’not have sufficient to provide for their wants. Relief workers could never save enough to tide them over such periods, as there were always bills to be thought of. “Those are not average pays I quoted,” said Mr Weenink. “In no month did the pay fall below 10/6 a day.” “Are those gross rates?” asked Mr Marchant. “No, they are definitely net rates, replied Mr Weenink. “The organization’s policy, which has been so severely criticized, is summed up in the sentence: We request that in all camp work a flat rate be provided sufficient to adequately maintain a man in camp and his wife and family at home,” said Mr McLaughlin. “Our reasons for advocating that are that no man will do satisfactory work for any employer unless he is certain he will be adequately rewarded.” Later McMcLaughlin said they were objecting to the Caroline-Josephville road job being put through out of unemployment funds because the general taxpayers would not receive any such benefit as would accrue to the owner of the property through which the road ran. At a further stage Mr Hanke said the Gore unemployed could not see how they were going to keep their families going if they went to camp. Mr Gilkison, replying to a statement, said that the committee was there to recommend on their merits certain works within its area. Eventually the question of the nonallowance in Southland of a week’s sick pay was raised by Mr McLaughlin, who was informed that an exception had been made for Southland to the general rule in New Zealand because the committee, in its advisory capacity to the board, was satisfied that there were advantages for the men if they were allowed to work up time in advance. Mr McLaughlin maintained that the time-in-advance system opened the way to abuses. Further discussion took place on points in which Southland differed from other parts of the country, members of the committee maintaining that the schemes inaugurated here were such as they could be proud of. When Mr Gilkison asked what Mr Strathern’s attitude would be if 63/- a week were guaranteed, Mr Strathern said this was not enough. The average man would rather be home in semistarvation than be away and know his wife and family were in no better a plight. After a further exchange of views, Mr McLaughlin said they could not accept relief rates as a standard for all work as had now become the case. Mr Gilkison concluded by saying he thought the men should give the camp a go, and if it was not as the Public Works engineer stated, the committee would support the men. The Mayor said it was their duty to see that the men were fairly treated. Mr Gilkison agreed. The deputation then withdrew. REPLY TO CERTIFYING OFFICER. In a statement issued to the Press Mr Marchant says that during the meeting he said that he wished to take the opportunity of refuting the statements made by the local certifying officer (Mr P. C. Weenink) regarding himself and published in the Invercargill and Gore Press. He wished to deal with what Mr Weenink termed “the efforts of Messrs P. Marchant and D. Strathern to turn the relief workers of Gore against the Caroline-Josephville camp.” Mr Marchant stated that he had been requested by a member of the Gore Unemployment Committee, a member of the business community and the president of the local branch of the union to go to Gore and meet the men who had already signified their intention to refuse to accept camp work under the conditions laid down by the department. He was carrying out the wishes of the Gore men and the policy of his union in its opposition to compulsory married men’s camps. It was alleged by Mr Weenink that when the Duck Creek work started “agitators incited the men to strike and most of them foolishly did so.” The facts were: Thirteen men out of 205 refused to accept the conditions imposed by the department, and walked off the job. At that time he (Mr Marchant) was working on another relief job in Invercargill, approximately five miles distant, and by neither act nor word had the slightest influence on the decision reached by those thirteen men. Mr Weenink says: “And strangely enough his position in the present dispute is precisel ythe same.” This was entirely incorrect as the foregoing facts clearly proved, said Mr Marchant. He challenged Mr Weenink to cite any case where he had, either before or after that dispute at Duck Creek, attempted to influence the men to down tools. Mr Marchant declared that Mr Weenink had made, a mistake in his facts, facts which he should verify before rushing into print.

Mr Marchant said he was not agitating; he was obeying the instructions given him by the men themselves. The implication Mr Weenink intended to convey was that he would agitate so

long as he was not personally involved in the matter. That was incorrect. In the case of their opposition to the County Council “piecework on allocation” to which his organization strongly objected, he was transferred to a job where he would have to accept the conditions they so strongly opposed. He refused to accept. Had it not been for the City Council supporting his contention that he was victimized and giving him work he would probably be refused unemployment relief still. Referring to Mr Weenink’s statement that he requested Mr Weenink in writing to send him to Duck Creek and Mr Weenink’s implication that he applied for work as he found that there was nothing wrong with the job, Mr Marchant said that the facts were as follows: “The job had been in operation for over a year and I was convinced that Mr Weenink, if given an opportunity, would continue his previous victimization of myself by refusing to consider my application. This he did for about six months. When I applied for work at the creek, I was the only able-bodied man working under the jurisdiction of the City Council who had not been drafted to the creek. Numerous new men as they registered had been sent. Anticipating further irresponsible and dangerous statements to the Press from Mr Weenink attacking my character, I had determined thus to arm myself and to prevent Mr Weenink from being able to say that I was not seeking the additional employment which he has always insisted is the relief worker’s duty. Referring to the certifying officer’s statement that men of average capacity working industriously should earn the minimum of 10/6 a day, Mr Pearce will assure Mr Weenink that there is no minimum wage on Public Works co-operative contract, and the certifying officer’s 10/6 minimum is misleading.”

In conclusion Mr Marchant requested the Unemployment Committee to appoint independent gentlemen with a view to investigating both sides of the story and examine the files of the organization in order to substantiate his statement. If he had misrepresented the position that morning he would publicly apologize to Mr Weenink. If the facts were as he had stated he demanded that the certifying officer supply a similar public apology to him. Referring to the matter of the rates earned at Te Anau, Mr Marchant informed a Times reporter last evening that he had had no opportunity to date of checking Mr Weenink’s statement. The assistant engineer (Mr Pearce) was at present out of town, but he had arranged with Mr Gilkison to discuss the matter with the engineer as soon as possible. MEETING IN SQUARE. ORGANIZATION’S CASE. In furtherance of the Relief Workers’ Organization’s campaign regarding married men’s camps, Mr D. Strathem, president of the organization, Mr D. McLaughlin, National secretary of the union of unemployed, Wellington, MrAnderson, president of the Ohai Relief Workers’ Organization, and Mr D. Robertson, secretary of the Citizens’ Committee, Ohai, addressed an interested audience from the band rotunda in the post office square last evening. Mr Strathern stated that the speakers would put before the public the case for the organization. The first speaker, Mr Robertson, in his opening remarks thanked the Mayor and councillors for the permission granted for the use of the rotunda. He said that at Ohai relief workers had the option of accepting the conditions of employment on the CarolineJosephville road or starve. The wages set by the department did not permit workers to earn a wage sufficient to maintain a home in common decency, and as there was no guarantee that the men would receive a decent wage the men refused to leave their homes. The more a married relief worker was hounded down and his living condition gradually worsened, the more he stuck to his last cherished possession—his home The public of Ohai and Nightcaps had stuck by the men in a magnificent manner, showing that the whole district was roused at the treatment meted out to the relief workers of Ohai and Nightcaps. Several exemptions had been granted, but there were others who had to depend on assistance granted by the citizens. Some men had handed in doctor’s certificates and in one case the doctor’s certificate was retained by Mr Weenink, but exemption had been refused. He appealed for public support for the men. Mr McLaughlin stated that the public expressed horror at reports of Communist labour camps, but exactly the same forcing of labour into camps in New Zealand was being carried out by the Unemployment Board. The label only had been changed. No one objected to a criminal being forced to perform work in expiation of his crime, but, the unemployed maintained that they were not criminals and no government had the right to say under what conditions workers should exist