WORK FOR UNEMPLOYED

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 43, 20 February 1930, Page 8

WORK FOR UNEMPLOYED

(To the. Editor.) Sir,—Mr. W. T. Strand's letter.on the above problem which is exercising the minds of the people just now is a vital and important one, as if one is denied the right to work he is consequently denied the right to live unless, of course, one is fortunate enough to live off the dividends derived from investments. ' ■ The actual causes of so much unemployment in New Zealand to-day are, I maintain, attributed to three factors—namely, machinery, women, and girl labour, and the immigration system being much too fast to absorb them into employment, which I am pleased to say is stopped for the time being. As relief works act.as a palliative only and is not a cure for the complaint, the only remedy in my opinion is a national scheme of unemployment insurance contributed to by the State, employer and employee combined with efficient organisation of the labour market which could be worked through the various post offices in the Dominion. I see, according to the "Evening Post" recently, that an Unemployment Bill will be introduced in Melbourne shortly ito be financed by the workers at the rate of 3d per week, the employers 3d, and the. Government adding a subsidy equal to the total payment by the employees, also that the fund is safeguarded as a worker must pay into the_fund for months before he becomes entitled to the sustenance allowance, which is limited to 15 weeks and ranges from 25s weekly in the case of married men to 15s in the case of unmarried men. This shows what can be accomplished by a mere halfpenny a day, but, of course, where the cost of living is very high this rate of contribution would have to be increased to enable one to live. Such a scheme would abolish the stigma of charitable aid to a certain extent, which very

few of the workers like to resort to when in distress, and it would have a tendency to reduce the rates, the money coining from another channel. It may be urged against mo lliat unemployment insurance is no remedy against unemployment,, as we have the worker to contend with who is engaged in seasonal employment such as harvesting, sheep shearing, etc. I agree, and in reply would like to point out that under an insurance scheme a fund iscreated out of which the worker can claim monetary relief- as of right in the event of his being unemployed through depression in business or other causes. It must be borne in mind that the business man in the prosperous times makes it a practice to put by a certain sum at the end of a year's trading into a reserve fund in the event of bad limes ahead, but the worker in his employ earning, say, £5 or £6 a week with perhaps a wife and small family; to support; is not in such a fortunate position, and it is for this class of worker that national insurance, is badly needed in orderto give him some security of existence which he does not at present possess. '■ • . ■ Mr. Strand's remedy for dealing with the unemployment problem is, shortly stated, this: Buy a comfortable five-roomed house with modern conveniences and half an. acre of the most suitable land for the purpose of growing vegetables, etc., which, he maintains, could be provided at a cost of £1000 or a weekly cost, including interest and principal, of 255. Till the land and produce a large quantity of fruit and vegetables of-various kinds and bring.in sufficient to enable one to.carry on without the necessity of having to annually register in the ranks of the unemployed. It looks very nice on paper, Mr. Strand, but, assuming one has the money to speculate, is it a 1 workable and paying proposition? I contend it is not, for x in the first place John Chinaman has got the . monopoly of the fruit market in the Hutt; and, secondly, I will guarantee to say, that if I entered into a contract with Mr. Strand to purchase off him a five-roomed house for £1000 with half an aero of good<land attached he would not be able to carry out his contract, as just now; it is not possible to buy a house at this figure. Of course, it might: be 15 or 20 years ago. I will cite my own case as an example. I purchased a house in the Lower Hutt with a moderate-sized garden in June, 1924, for £1400. As it was just out of the builder's hands it was in a very rough condition in regard to the land, and I have had to put fences round the property and do other improvements. A short time ago a land and estate agent called npon me and inquired if I was willing to sell my property; if so, he said, he' could easily get £2000 for it without any trouble. Now it stands to reason that if my house has increased in value owing to improvements made by me and to the fact that a new railway and up-to-date bus service has been inaugurated, other properties in the Hutt Valley must also increase in- value; therefore, Mr. Strand's proposal, in view of these facts, is an impossible one. ; ; In conclusion, I would like to ask Mr. Strand how it would be possible for anyone employed on relief' works in class ,"B" organised by the Lower Hutt Borough Council at the time he was Mayor of the Borough to pay even a small deposit to enable such worker to purchase this fiveroomed house and land mentioned by him when several of them were only earning nine shillings a day.—l am, etc., LIVE AND LET LIVE.