RELIEF WORKERS.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20484, 10 December 1934, Page 7

RELIEF WORKERS.

Should Not Replace Permanent Men. RESOLUTION CONSIDERED. A copy of a memorandum submitted by* the Rangiora Unemployment Committee . for consideration was received by the Citizens’ U nemploy'ment Relief Committee at its meeting this morning. Comment was requested. The resolution stated that: “Whereas the maintenance and upkeep of boroughs and counties is a charge on ratepayers additional to their land or income tax. and noting that the Monetary Commission stressed (he utmost need of an improvement in the finances of the primary producers. And whereas it is not in the interest of boroughs and counties to dismiss permanent men and put relief men in their positions, but rather to increase their permanent staff to keep pace with the ever-increasing load of maintenance and upkeep; and whereas the ratepayers of boroughs and counties who provide the greater part of the Dominion's revenue cannot: further approve of unnecessary or barely useful and specially branded relief jobs. This committee resolves to ask the Unemployment Board to allot No. 5 relief men to boroughs and counties and other employing authorities at the rate of two men for each permanent employee up to six, and thereafter as may be arranged, such men to take part in whatever borough, county or other work may be required.”

Mr W. E. Leadley said lie thought that the resolution needed elucidation. The latter clause seemed to contradict the second. The secord clause had always been the policy' of the committee, but the last clause appeared to' ask for relief men to replace o r dinary men, though it was not. said whether the men w T ould be paid at relief or ordinary rates.

Mr W. W. Scarff reported that he had heard discussion of the resolution, and Rangiora wished for two relief men for each permanent worker. They' would be paid at trade union rates, one-half to be provided by the local body and one-half by the Unemploy*ment Board. This would mean that the taxpaver would have to provide more funds. Mr Leadley* said he wished to know how this would affect, the remainder of the unemployed. If this were applied to Christchurch, it would mean that most of the unemployed working under No. 5 Scheme would bo transferred ( to sustenance. The chairman (Mr E. H. Andrews) said that the present rate in the city was two unemployed for each permanent worker. It was decided that the Rangiora Unemplovment Committee shoul 1 be informed that the Christchurch committee could not support the resolution in its present form, and that the committee was prepared to confer with the Rangiora committee on the matter. MORE ASSISTED. Central Relief Depot Work. The Christchurch Citizens’ Unemployment Relief Committee met this morning. Present: Messrs E. 11. Andrews (chairman), J. XV. Beanland, J. S. Barnett, A. Peverill, J. XV. Crampton, W. E. Leadley, W. W. Scarff. G. Harper, F. XV. J. Belton, M. Ross (certifying officer to the Unemployment Board), Mrs A. I. Fraer, Rev F. T. Read and Mr L. N. Hitchens (honorary secretary*). It was reported by* Mr Harper that there had been an increase in the number of families assisted by the Central Relief Depot. During the past fortnight the number had risen from 2133 to 2196. Renewals had also increased by 455. Mr Harper added that the depot was working smoothly and the supply of rations was as liberal as possible. The chairman asked the reason for the increase. Mr Harper replied that he could not imagine why* each application was carefully inquired into. Mr Scarff suggested that with the approach the Christmas season people might be wanting to get a little extra. The Ileathcote County Council had decided to give relief workers a fortnight’s pay before Christmas and a fortnight’s pay after the New Year, so distributing the money more evenly. Many women were afraid that if given three weeks’ pay at one time it would not be sufficient to last over the holi-! day’s.