RELIEF WORKERS

Southland Times, Issue 22731, 6 November 1935, Page 8

RELIEF WORKERS

APPOINTMENT QUESTION PREROGATIVE OF THE ENGINEER ♦ CLAUSE REFERRED BACK The engagement of a certain man by the Qity Engineer was questioned at last night’s meeting of the Invercargill City Council when the Works Committee, taking exception to the appointment, recommended that the engineer be instructed to dispense with’ worker’s services and arrange for the position to be filled by a suitable family man who was either a ratepayer or a tenant in the city. After a discusion in committee, the matter was referred back to the Works Committee for further consideration. Councillor H. Ritchie asked that his vote against the motion referring the matter back should be recorded. The clause in the Works Committee’s report on the subject was as follows: “A request was made at the last council meeting that the City Engineer submit to the Works Committee a list of the men who have applied for work upon the city footpaths in connection with the subsidized scheme. It was also asked that the particulars of the engagement of a certain man be considered by the Works Committee. The City Engineer stated that he was a former Works Department employee, retrenched when work was scarce, but now re-engaged. The committee understands that he has no family, is not a ratepayer, and was not living in the city at the time of his re-engagement. The committee takes exception to the appointment and recommends that the City Engineer be instructed to dispense with his services and arrange for the position to be filled by a suitable family man who is either a ratepayer or a tenant in the city.”

In connection with the Works Committee’s recommendation Councillor A. Jones wrote: “I wish my fellow councillors to know that I am not at all in sympathy with the motion and strongly oppose it. I consider it is a breach of the agreement entered into with the City Engineer when he was appointed to the position, and I regret that my absence up north prevents me from voicing my objection to this clause on Tuesday evening.”

Workers’ Wages. Apropos of the subject of relief workers’ wages concerning which there was a discussion at the previous meeting of the council, the City Engineer submitted the following statement showing the average earnings of the men for the current vzeek: 18 class A men receive 14/- for working 8 hours (10). 28 class B men receive £1 4/- for working 12 hours (12). 23 class C men receive £1 8/- for working 16 hours (16). 11 class D men receive £1 12/- forworking 16 hours (16). 12 class E men receive £1 16/- for working 20 hours (22). 11 class F men receive £1 18/- for working 20 hours (23). 4 class G men receive £2 for working 24 hours (24). — Class H men receive £2 2/- for working 24 hours (26). 1 class I man receives £2 4/- for working 24 hours (27). 2 class I/D men receive £2 6/- for working 28 hours (28). “The hours given in brackets in the last column are the actual ration of work upon which the payment is calculated, but men are required to work only the next lowest complete half-day, which is the working hours shown,” stated the engineer. “In theory Class A is on the basis of 1/1J an hour plus 2/bonus, and Classes H-I on 1/6 a hour plus 3/- bonus, but actually cutting off the extra bonus creates anomalies. It will be seen that Class B gets actually 2/- an hour worked, as does Class D.” “This past week,” added the engineer in his report, “109 men earned £147 5/3, an average of £1 7/- each. Averages are not, however, a proper measure, as the rate varies so very much with the men’s classifications and the relative numbers of each class employed.”