RELIEF WORKERS DECIDE TO STRIKE

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 78, 1 April 1931, Page 9

RELIEF WORKERS DECIDE TO STRIKE

ACTION TAKEN BY MEN AT LYTTELTON.

After a lively deputation to the Mayor of Lyttelton this morning, the Lyttelton unemployed decided to refuse to accept relief work under the new rates of pay, and called upon all workers not to pay their unemployment levy. The men refused to start Work, and were unanimous in stating that they would not accept employment until some new agreement had been reached. There are about 100 men on the Lyttelton unemployed register and they have been receiving sustenance under the Unemployment Board’s No. 5 scheme. This morning the men refused to turn to at the new rate of wages. They held a meeting and, as a result, about fifty members, including a number of seamen and firemen, waited on the Mayor (Mr W. T. Foster) at the Council Chamber. The chairman of works (Mr F. E. Sutton) and the Town Clerk (Mr F. Hobbs) were present with the Mayor. On behalf of the unemployed, Mr J. Parsons stated that the men present wished to enter a very strong protest against the reduction of wages from 14s per day to 9s for single men and 12s 6d for married men. He moved: “ That this meeting of Lyttelton unemployed protests against any reduction being made in relief pay, and refuses to accept Work at 9s and 12s 6d per day, and call upon all workers not to pay their next unemployment levy.” Another speaker stated that he could not see how the men could exist under the new rate offered, especially the married men. Mr W. Gambier said that 18s for two days’ work in the case of single men would not pay for 10s per week for a room and one meal a day. He asked how a man could be expected to do pick and shovel work on one meal a. day. He said that for the past five months he had only averaged one meal a day. He asked the Mayor if he could not enter a strong protest to the Government concerning the reduction. He demanded a reply from the Mayor, but Mr Foster declined to answer at that stage. Mr T. Thompson asked if it would not be possible for the council to subsidise the relief pay. Mr Gambier: Would it not be fetter for the Government to pay the money without work? A man cannot work if he is not fed. A voice: “Starve.” “Better In Gaol.’*

Several of the men shouted that they would not start work at the reduced rate of pay. One speaker contended that they would be better off in gaol, as there they would have three meals a day and would not have to ** scab.” Government employees in permanent work were getting £4 10s or ££s a week or more and were only receiving a 10 per cent cut, while the unemployed, men out of work, were getting about a 40 per cent cut. Another speaker said that if the council were getting the benefit of the work carried out by the unemployed, why could not the council subsidise the relief pay? Workers were receiving 9s a day fifty years ago, but prices today were much higher, and a man could not live on such a rate* Rents should be brought down. Mr T. Martin, Lyttelton agent for the Seamen’s Union, said that the men realised that the Mayor could do little or nothing in the matter, but it was the only way in which the unemployed could enter a protest. It was suggested that Mr Parsons’s motion should be forwarded by the Mayor on behalf of the Lyttelton unemployed to the Minister of Labour.

On the motion being put, it was carried unanimously, the Mayor undertaking to telegraph the motion to the Minister of Labour. “A Government Matter.’*

In reply, the Mayor stated that no one regretted the necessity of reducing wages more than he did. The council had been circularised by the Unemployment Board regarding the reduction, which the council had to abide by as it was a Government matter, and had nothing to do with the council. The council, as a public body, had offered to provide work if the board supplied the funds, with the result that 100 men were receiving employment. “You men must realise that the council has been carrying out a lot of work with unemployed labour, and it may yet mean that later on some of the council’s permanent emplo3'ees may have to be put off.” Regarding the reduction of pay, it had to be remembered that the board had found that the amount of money provided for the unemployed out of the unemployment levy was not sufficient for the demand made on the funds. The board was finding itself short of money, and things had become so serious that the board had found that it would be necessary to reduce wages in order to make the money spin out. The Government were reducing wages generally.. Unfortunately the council was not in the position to subsidise relief work. Work Not Productive.

Councillor F. E. Sutton said the position was as the Mayor had stated. The work in Lyttelton carried out by the unemployed was not of a productive nature. For the borough to subsidise the pay it would cost the" council £SO a week, or £2500 a year; on the present number of unemployed. A borough the size of Lyttelton could not stand such expenditure. He would suggest to the men that in view of the fact that they had entered a protest they should start work; at 1 o’clock, and wait and see what other centres were doing. After all, half a loaf was better than no loaf at all. A voice: They are not starting at other places. You suggest that we should start at 1 o’clock, and that would mean that we would be the first to “scab” on our mates. When asked by the Town Clerk if all would refuse work, the men responded that they would. NO ACTION TAKEN BY CHRISTCHURCH MEN. No word of any demonstration on the part of the relief workers under the Christchurch City Council was received up to noon to-day. The Council have a large number of men working at different points in the city, and it was expected by some that the action in Lyttelton would have an echo in the city. Ihe Heathcote County Council experienced no trouble. “ Our men are a good lot,” a reporter was told, “ and though there is a little growling, which is not unnatural, they are making the best of it.” The Heathcote County Council are at present employing 509 relief workers. No word of stoppage has been heard by the Waimairi County Council which at present employ about 200. In some cases the men have not yet received official notification of the reduced rate,

though the majority must know that the cut is coming. The Works Department of the Christchurch City Council were not advised of the reduction in the rates of relief pay till this morning. Steps were taken at once to inform the council’s men of the lower rates of pay. Councillor J. W. Beanland said that until such time as the position could be reviewed, it was not proposed to employ relief workers, for a longer period each week to give them a chance to make up the difference. Up to the present tune, a single man’s sustenance allowance had been £1 Is, but he had been given two days’ work at 14s a day, amounting in all to 28s. Now, the single man would be able to earn only 18s per week, 3s less than the sustenance allowance. Mr Beanland expressed some concern at the intimation of the Minister of Labour that the No. 5 scheme would cease as from April 11. Full tion would have to be given to the whole matter.

PROTEST IN AUCKLAND AGAINST LOWER PAY. (Special to the “Star.”) AUCKLAND, April 1. A decision to cease work on all unemployment relief jobs from to-day, as a protest against the action of * the Government in reducing the rate of pay from 14s a day for all relief workers to 12s 6d for married men and 9s for single men, was reached at a crowded meeting last evening under the auspices of the Unemployed Workers’ Movement. A resolution was carried:— “This mass meeting of unemployed workers and relief workers resolves that they will not break the conditions of the workers by accepting the starvation wage of 12s fid and 9s, and we call on all relief workers on all jobs to immediately down tools. We furthermore call upon the officials of organised labour to call a meeting at once to decide what action they will take to support this action of ours.” Threats Alleged. Attempts were made to-day to induce all men on relief works to stop. The principal developments occurred in the Mount Eden district, where 100 met) were working. A stop-work meeting was held, and, in response to an appeal, all but about twenty men responded. Eventually the number of workers was reduced to five married men. It is alleged that, in consequence of threats, other gangs of men were then visited, and 100 out of the 340 men at the Training College stopped work. The next place visited was Mount Roskill, where about 700 were working, but here there were no stoppages, the agitators being greatly outnumbered and about fifteen policemen being handy. At Mount Roskill. the workmen who refused to be involved in the strike have asked to be supplied with pick handles to repel any invaders. UNEMPLOYMENT BOARD ISSUES A STATEMENT Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 1. Referring to protests against the new rates of pay for relief work, the chairman of the Unemployment Board (the Hon S. G. Smith) stated that the rate of wages is a matter for local bodies to determine. The Unemployment Board simply deal with subsidies or refunds of wages which they will make. The Board have decided that these will in no case exceed the standard relief rates of wages on Government relief works, which from today will be 9s per day for single men and 12s 6d a day for married men. If a local body decides to pay more, it may do so, but the Unemployment Board will not refund to local bodies more than these rates.'