PRO. CANNON ON UNEMPLOYMENT

Hokitika Guardian, 7 August 1930, Page 2

PRO. CANNON ON UNEMPLOYMENT

“Professor Cannon makes a distinction between short term and long term unemployment, and thinks that the excess of short term unemployment over what was usual before the war is attributable to. the fact that unemployment is now better endowed in Great Britain than it was then. Employers, he says, are more likely to discharge men when the latter can draw on a common .fund, for the same reason, trade union negotiators can afford to take the risk that a wage rate on which they insist will cause unemployment; and the insurance scheme Inin reduced the economic pressure which used to make persons grab at every chance of employment, that they could get, regardless of every inconvenience, and stuck to what they had got regardless of every disagreeablenesn.” “If it is really desired to cut down the short term unemployment, it can be done by lengthening the initial period which elapses before benefit begins to be paid.” “This would have the advantage of making more money available for dealing with the much greater evil ol long term unemployment.” •‘Under the present system, the risk of the small evil of being unem-. ployed for a fortnight or three weeks is covered in a considerable': degree, while the risk of the, much greater evil of compulsory change; of occupation and domicile is not covered at all,” :■

Professor Cannon i s not, the only person who is of the opinion that many unemployment insurance schemes make it too .easy for workers to dbtajn the benefits of unemployment insurance.

As a matter of policy and the growing and excessive costs, many are of the opinion that no person should he entitled to go on the funds till unemployment has lasted at least one month. It is a well-known fact that when once a worker, or any person, is in receipt of lenefits there is not the same inducement for him to seek work, and when once on the fund, more especially in the case of young personis, they are apt to rest on it and not look for employment at all. Although short time unemployment is to be regretted, it is not the terrible’evil that long term unemployment is, and provisions for the former should not stand in the way of. the latter.'