LYTTELTON UNEMPLOYED

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20278, 12 April 1934, Page 9

LYTTELTON UNEMPLOYED

Borough Council’s Reply to Circular. A circular distributed in Lyttelton by the Unemployed Workers’ Association, headed “ To the Citizens of Lyttelton,” and making allegations to the effect that the Lyttelton Borough Council was not carrying out its responsibilities as far as relief work was concerned, was strongly resented by the council at its meeting on Monday night, and a committee consisting of the Mayor (Mr W. T. Lester), the Town Clerk (Mr F. Hobbs) and Mr A. H. Fowles was appointed to draft a reply. The circular stated that at Hastings on March 20 Mr J. Jessep, deputychairman of the Unemployment Board, said that the Act did not take away the responsibility from local bodies, that unemployment relief was not intended to provide a wage but was merely sustenance, and that those who earned a few shillings in addition to their relief were not penalised. “ How does the Lyttelton Borough Council shoulder this responsibility?” asked the pamphlet. It went on to allege that if a relief worker fell sick he got nothing. If a man got a little casual employment on the waterfront he was not allowed to make up the relief time, though the Act provided that he might work any three days of the week. The men, it continued, were being penalised and money had been returned to the Unemployment Board. “In addition,” the text concluded, “we are again threatened by the Borough Council with a. cessation of relief work or the introduction of a task work system. They are determined to starve us into submission. Workers and tradesmen of Lyttelton, support us in our struggle to maintain a living standard. Trade Union rates or full maintenance. No camps. No cuts. Free State Unemployment Insurance.” Reply Issued. The reply issued by the special committee offers a complete denial to the allegations in the circular. The committee states that no men have been penalised; the reverse has been the case. The council has shouldered its responsibility by providing the Diamond Harbour road construction for over two years, and had found sufficient work for single men to prevent them from the necessity of having to’ go to relief camps. The allegation that the council threatened a cessation of relief work was contrary to all the facts of the case, added the circular. The fact that the Lyttelton Relief Committee, under the auspices of the council, had distributed wood, coal, groceries and clothing during the past three winters gave the direct negation to the allegation that the council were going to “ starve the men into submission.”