BUILDING SUBSIDY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 179, 1 August 1932, Page 11

BUILDING SUBSIDY

WEAKNESS ALLEGED CABE OF SUB-CONTRACTORS. PALMERSTON N., July 28. The position of the small contractor under the No. 10 scheme, by which a subsidy is granted for labour used in building operations, was fully discussed at a meeting of sub-contractors in tho building trade last evening. It was emphasised that sub-contractors could not get a subsidy on their own labour, which formed a big proportion of that used on many jobs, and they decided to endeavour to get this weak ness rectified.

The meeting was the outcome of the formation in Palmerston North of an Employment Development Committee having for its object the launching of a campaign to induce business men and citizens generally to take full advantage of the Government's offer under the No. 10 scheme. A substantial fund has been raised for publicity an-1 organisation, and an office established to give information and generally to assist those having work to do and those desiring work.

The sub-contractors, who in many cases do all their own work, fear they will be squeezed out of business altogether because the subsidy promised under the No. 10 scheme is on unemployed labour only. Suggestions Made.

One of the speakers at last night’s meeting, Mr. E. Dymock. said that a letter had been sent to the Unemploy ment Commissioner, calling attention to the fact that they were likely to be forced out of business by the opera tions of the scheme as now proposed. It would injure them instead of giving assistance. This had happened under the No. 5 scheme to many road and drainage contractors, and the small contractors were vitally concerned about this aspect regarding the No. 10 scheme. They were all contractors in a small way, often having one or more men in their employ, and under the present scheme uo subsidy was possible ou their own labour or jobbing work unless they registered unemployed. The object of the No. 10 scheme was to reduce unemployment* but the small contractors contended it would have the opposite effect by fore ing them out of business. The scheme was to last until December, and in that time their trade connection would be lost and they would bo among tho unemployed. They therefore suggested to tho commissioner that a system of subsidy be made on total labour costs on tho completion of any work. A. further suggestion had been made that tenders bo called for all work which was to be subsidised, a method which was in almost general practice and which would safeguard both large and small contractors, as well as protecting owners from incompetent tradesmen. They already knew of instances like the following, which proved their statement: A business house desiring to take advantage of the subsidy for a repair job found that subsidised labour could not be obtained from a plumbing firm, although the plumbing staff were nil on short time. To obtain the subsidy the plumbing firm would have to dismiss a man or men. and only when they had registered as unemployed could they be re-engnged to do the work. As the award rate of wages was to be the basis of tho subsidy, what, possibility bad the contractor of obtaining a legitimate supervising and overhead charge from the owner?

Mr. Dymock said a petition had been drawn up in support of tho letter, and signatures were invited. Thirty-one signed in the room, and it was mentioned that others not able to be present, were willing to sign.