EACH CASE ON ITS MERITS

Taranaki Daily News, 17 January 1931, Page 7

EACH CASE ON ITS MERITS

CLAIMS FOR SUSTENANCE COMPLAINTS TO HOSPITAL BOARD. UNEMPLOYED WHO REFUSE WORK. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. . While a Trades and Labour Council deputation was being heard by the Wellington Hospital Board to-day a large number of unemployed assembled outside the hospital, and after several speakers had ventilated their opinions on the question of sustenance a deputation was appointed to place the views of the men before the hospital board. The crowd, which comprised about 13G men and women, was closely shepherded by a strong contingent of police. It was arranged that five speakers should represent the unemployed men. and wait as a deputation on the boardMr. Grayndler, one of the speakers, addressing the members of the board, said he objected to unemployed men being p-id at the rate of 3s a day. The standard wages of 14s a day should bo paid. Men were supposed to start work that morning, but had refused io do soThey felt that if they accepted work at the miserable rate offered they would be “scabbing” on their fellow-workers. Mr. J. Sanford said if the board's answer io the deputation’s request was not favourable he thought it was likely that the men waiting downstairs would be forced to take action. Mr. Sanford, said he had received many complaints about the quality of the food the men were given at free meals, and in reply to Mr. Lowe, of the Social Welfare Organisation, said he had been told th® tea was like soda water, while some of ther meals frightened the men. /■ Mr. Lowe saidi he was surprised to hear that. He had asked men what eat-ing-house they preferred and they had asked to be sent' to one Mr. Santord was complaining about. “J want to stress the women’s side of this position,” said Misp Myrtle Jones, another member of the deputation. “I am told that the treatment they receive at some of the self-help institutions absolutely disgraceful. One woman I know sat from 10.30 in the morning till 5.10 'at night before she Was- attended to, while assistants behind the counter are most impudent.” She thought the board was understaffed to. cope with the number of people coming for assistance. The chairman said he could not give a definite answer to the deputation's re- / quest for sustenance. It took time to call the board together and those present at the moment could not accept the full responsibility. In an/ case, he understood a good many men had not refused work.

Mr. Sanford said that at least 60 or 70 men had refused work. The chairman said the board’s finance was limited and had to be spread over as wide an area as possible. As far as sustenance was concerned, those individuals who had actually refused work would be treated as individuals, each, case on its merits. “You will have to rest assured that we will do that,” he said. Mr. Begley, a member of the board, said he thought th© responsibility of giving a definite answer should ba undertaken. On the chairman’s statement, however, a reply was given. Th© deputation was asked to tell the men to call at the social welfare counter and. present their tickets, _ and each casa would be treated on its merits.