LACK OF WORK

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 88, 9 April 1934, Page 2

LACK OF WORK

Suggested Solutions UNION OF UNEMPLOYED ADDRESSES IN WAIPUKURAU Unemployment was the subject of addresses given by Messrs. F. E. Lark, president of the National Union of Unemployed Workers, and H. Ashford, delegate to the national conference, to a large as well as appreciative audience in the Masonic Hall on Saturday evening. Mr. D. R. Mills, chairman of the Waipukurau Unemployed Association, occupied the chair and introduced the speakers in complimentary terms. Mr. Lark said that in order that the present state of destitution in New Zealand might be appreciated and remedied, it would be necessary first of all to make an examination of the position as it affected this country, and then to deal with it as circumstances and the national laws of humanity demanded, forgetting if possible the relationship of the question to other countries and determining to make provision for the needs of our people. That in a country of such productivity we had approximately onethird of our people suffering from unemployment was sufficient to warrant full examination of the whole system of society. There could be nothing but unemployment while the present system of production for profit rather than for use was in operation. From an economic point of view the greatest mistake the authorities had made had been to force men to work for sustenance, because that made possible the exploitation of labour. Every local body in the Dominion, intentionally or otherwise, had “sacked'’ permanent employees and taken on relief workers. There were approximately 250,000 people in New Zealand who were the victims of unemployment. In 1930 they received 14/- a day, 4 days a week, a total of £2 16/-. Since then the amount of relief had been gradually reduced, till in Waipukurau today married men were working for less than £1 a week.

In the cities the position was a little better, but the cities were going to stand, behind the country districts and see that they got a fair deal. The speaker criticised the Board’s policy of cutting down relief so as to force men back into jobs and reduce taxation. There were no jobs available for them, he said, and it was an insult to say that it was necessary to starve them to force them to look for work.. Referring to arbitration awards, Mr. Lark said that they were the greatest protection the business-man had had. Their suspension, he declared, had opened up an avenue for unscrupulous employers, so that the man who desired to pay a fair wage was threatened by bankruptcy if he did so owing to this price-cutting competition. (A member of the audience, “Hear! hear!) He strongly criticised the fact that although women had to pay a wages tax, not a penny was provided for their relief in the case of their being unemployed. In addition no proper provision was made for a man to earn enough to maintain his wife and children. The reproduction of the race under present conditions, he said, would tend to produce a race of degenerates which it would take more than the unemployment fund to house in 14 years time. Landlords on the whole had been humane and had endeavoured to keep a roof over the heads of unemployed as long as possible, but their remedy was to remove those in authority and to put in their, place those who would see that every man had an opportunity to earn sufficient to pay his rent.

The speaker also referred to what he described as “slave camps," in which could be seen men who had lost hope. Forced to work for 10/a week and banished miles from civilisation they could never hope to get a job if there were one offering. Mr. Lark then went on to deal with the constructive policy advocated by the Union. The position could be relieved somewhat by going back to the land. Land in suitable areas, with security of tenure, should be made available, either by voluntary or compulsory acquisition, to all desiring to occupy it —and there were 12,000 such. Until the land was capable of producing sufficient for the maintenance of the occupier and his dependents, provision should be made for a sustenance

allowance the same as at present. All products would be marketed and controlled by the State, and the net proceeds restored to the occupier, up to and including the. amount he would ordinarily have received for the work performed on the land at the rate of pay governing the class of work performed, the balance received from the sale of the produce to be credited against the outlay in the cost of implements, stock, etc. Surely, the speaker asked, that would be better than the present system, under which, for instance, 1400 men had been employed and £90,000 had been spent in the construction of an Auckland golf course, which was as yet only half-finished. In view of the necessity for the construction of roads and the development of national resources Some of the population would have to be drafted to the country, but . there should be no need to separate a man from his family. What was wrong with village settlements, where the women and children could go with the men and live a happy, healthy community life? Referring to the displacement of labour by machinery, the speaker said that many were apt to overlook the fact that the people displaced were the potential consumers of the product of the machine. He did not advocate the abolition of machinery; full advantage should be taken of the most modern machinery in all industries, and the hours of labour adjusted in accordance with the amount of labour displaced by the machine, which should be forced to maintain man, rather than man being starved to maintain the machine.

The speaker next dealt with the position of the many unemployed adolescents, between the ages of 16 and 20. for’whom no provision whatever was made. He advocated the establishment of institutions where they could be trained for useful vocations, and their payment while undergoing training. "If we could train young men for war under the compulsory military training system we can surely train them for a position in peace,” he said. The union did not advocate strikes among relief workers as it realised the futility of such action, said Air. Lark. They would do better by organising their purchasing power, without which the business-people were impotent. , The object of the union was to get the citizens behind it; if those in Parliament were not going to make provision to solve the problems referred to, the sooner the people woke up and put in someone else who would, the better.

Air. Ashford’s Address. Air. Ashford said he felt that the present Government was the most incompetent New Zealand had ever had. His listeners were more optimistic than he was if they thought that the Government was going to offer any solution of the problems facing the country; if it had a solution it was its duty to have put it into operation long ago. The union was a non-party, but not a non-political organisation, in that it had a policy to put before the people. That policy was not one of alleviation, which would only prolong the agony, but one of construction. The speaker went on to criticise the Government for imposing the high rate of exchange, which was to have put an extra £8,000,000 into circulation, but which had failed to do so. Air. Ashford strongly advocated the development of our secondary industries and our home market. “If it is possible to export our primary products to any country in exchange for the goods and services rendered by that country, then it is possible to i exchange our primary products for the goods and services that can. be rendered by this country,” he said. Any surplus could for a long time be devoted to the liquidation of our debts overseas, and when that was accomplished hours of labour could be. synchronised with the national needs.

The speaker also advocated State control of currency and credit, with the sole right of note issue. He referred to the successful operation of a similar scheme in Guernsey, which had issued its own paper money for over 100 years. If the issue of notes was restricted to the value of the products and labour of the people there could be no inflation, he declared. He was of opinion that a quota was to be put in operation by Bri-

tain when the Ottawa agreement expired. Britain would have to reserve her markets for her own farmers and for those who purchased her products. This would be detrimental to the farmer of New Zealand, but on the other hand he should realise that in New Zealand there was a large and unedeveloped market whinin' had not by any means reached satur' ation point so far as, the consumption of primary products was concerned. What we had reached was the limit of the people’s purchasing capacity. Much more milk and butter, for instance, could be consumed were currency conditions more favourable.

By putting men into secondary industries, we could, with a national note issue, increase the purchasing power of the people and provide a good market for the farmer. In the industries of the Dominion to-day there was sufficient machinery lying idle to absorb 60,000 men. While the speaker realised that the farmers were .getting a quite inadequate price for their products at present, he criticised the amount of assistance (£12,000,000 per annum) that they were drawing from the pockets of the other hard-pressed taxpayers. “It has been suggested,’’ he said, “that as we don't consttfm £12,000,000 worth of primary ducts a year, it would pay us to pfijr sion off the farmer, and purchase primary products elsewhere!” — (Laughter). The speaker was sympathetic with the farmers, but it was an absurdity for any one section of the community to try to get out of its difficulties at the expense of another. What was needed was unity of action. In conclusion, Mr. Ashford criticised in detail the recently published suggestions of Mr. W. Goodfellow, and emphasised the need for a con-

str active course of action, showing that constitutional methods could best serve the interests of the worklegs. Question Time. When questions were invited Mr. J. McCarthy, a member of the audience, referring to a statement made by Mr. Lark, asked whether he contended that all local bodies had. takdflHkvantage of the unemployed. Air. Lark said he hoped the town clerk would “shake the tar” out of him if he was wrong, but he would say that in Waipukurau local bodies had put off permanent hands and taken on relief workers. He was not condemming the local bodies for it; they had been forced to do so, and if they hadn’t found work for the unemployed then the men would have been left without any. Afr. McCarthy rose to a point of order. As a member of the Borough Council he stated that that body had not put off any permanent hands to take on relief workers. And he was certain that the Christchurch City Council had not done so either.

Mr. Lark said that if the speaker could prove that neither the nor the county had done so, he withdraw his statement through the paper, but not before. Incidental to the subsequent discussion, in which another member of the audience (Mr. H. Woodward) became involved), he questioning Mr. McCarthy’s statement, Mr. McCarthy said that a fair day’s work was expected for a fair day’s pay (apparently referring to normal wage conditions). Mr. Lark contended that the men (evidently meaning relief workers) were not getting a fair day’s pay. In reply to a question by Mr. A. C. Holms as to whether the union favoured a rental or interest subsidy scheme, in the interests of security of tnure for workless families, Mr Lark said that the union was definitely against subsidies of ahy kind, demanding the right for .every man to receive sufficient to pay for wkat/he needed. '• <