UNEMPLOYED

Wairarapa Times-Age, 14 May 1938, Page 9

UNEMPLOYED

COMPILATION OF OFFICIAL RETURNS STATEMENT BY MINISTER FULL TIME AND OTHER WORKERS (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The method adopted, in the compilation of the unemployed figures was referred to by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, in a statement issued last evening. He said that the present method, which excluded figures relating to men in full-time employment, was the same as that introduced by the previous administration in 1935.

“It is vastly different in principle to class as unemployed a man who, having registered, is compulsorily set to work often on a job without value and under conditions which differ entirely from standard or ward conditions on the ground that it is only a relief job, than it is to class as unemployed men who are placed in useful and productive employment under conditions that have been the subject of agreement between the workers and their employers, in accordance with the provisions of our industrial legislation,” said the Minister.

“I have been accused of juggling with the official unemployment figures because when we came into office I included in the unemployment returns all those who were said to have been provided with full-time employment with assistance from the employment fund, while today they are excluded from the official unemployment returns. Quite an amount of the so-call-ed full-time employment that was existing when we assumed office had been started only just prior to the last elections, and at the date of the,elections 21,267 of the registered men had been

excluded from the published figures by the previous Government on the grounds that they had been absorbed in full-time employment. FARM WORKERS “Now let us see whether this number should have been excluded or not. This is how they are made up; 627 were styled 4A men. These were mostly young virile men who were compelled either to go off relief or to accept work for farmers; the conditions of their employment were that they still drew relief pay of 10s per week personally from the bureau and the farmer had to provide them with shelter and pay them at least 5s per week; only a very few appear to have reported receiving more than this minimum.

“Two thousand eight hundred were compelled to take contract work on farms scrub-cutting, etc.; they had no say whatever in the terms' of the contract which was made for them, based on an assumption that they could, if they were good men, earn £3 a week, which at that time was less than the recognised labourers’ rate; if the work were not accepted* they were stood down from relief. “One thousand and three were in camps receiving either 17s 6d per week with food or 27s 6d per week and finding themselves in food. “Nine hundred and seventeen were waterside workers who were receiving sustenance relief because they were earning less than the recognised relief rate, but these were classed as fulltime engaged because they had to attend daily at the waterfront —today if any waterside worker is granted sustenance he is included in the official return.

“Seven hundred and eighty-seven were in afforestation camps and had, up to just prior to the election, been in receipt of 17s 6d a week, but had been raised to 9s a day, an arbitrary relief rate which differs entirely in principle from the present Public Works agreement rhte which was fixed after proper consultation with the union concerned. MEN ON PUBLIC WORKS “Approximately 4000 were employed by the Public Works Department, but at relief rate of 9s or 12s a day without any of the other conditions applicable to the permanent Public Works Department workers. The balance were scattered with other departments or with local bodies, but all exempt from participating in award conditions by a clause inserted in the I.C. and A. Act, which we removed at the first opportunity. “It will be seen from these remarks, said Mr Armstrong, “that there was every justification for continuing to show these men with the unemployment figures, but long before September, 1937, when the practice was discontinued, the position had entirely changed as all full-time workers, whether or not subsidised from the Employment Promotion Fund, were engaged under recognised standard conditions determined in accordance with the laws of the country. “Now it was noticed from the speech from the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon A. Hamilton, that he was indulging in offering challenges to the Prime Minister. May I suggest a double challenge to Mr Hamilton: (1) That he cannot find proof of a single person classed as full-time employed assisted from the employment funds at the time of the election who was in receipt of full standard award conditions; and ‘(2) that it is impossible for him to show that there are any excluded from the unemployment figures today who are not fully employed under recognised trade union conditions. It would be no more correct to show these men as unemployed ' today, merely on the

ground that finance in some degree has been provided for their employment from the Employment Promotion Fund, which is a revenue account, than it would be to class all Highways Board men as unemployed because their work is financed largely from a tax revenue account. FULL-TIME FIGURES.

“While, therefore, it is a fact that figures relating to men in full-time employment subsidised from the employment promotion fund have not been published with the figures of registered unemployed since September, 1937, I must emphasise that the present method of publication, which excludes full-time figures, is the same as that introduced by the previous administration in September, 1935. I have shown that the full-time figure of 21,267 which was excluded at that particular time should not have been excluded because those men were still essentially relief workers.

"Regarding the expenditure of money from the employment promotion fund and the reduced number of men remaining without employment, I would emphasise that the Act as drawn up by the previous Government anticipated the creation of employment as a first charge on the fund and only to pay sustenance when employment could not be created. Following that principle, which was laid down by the previous Government, but not acted upon to any great extent, useful employment has been found on worthwhile work, financed partially from the employment promotion fund, with the Public Works Department and through local bodies. Surely that is the proper course to adopt pending the opportunity for industry to absorb the surplus labour.”