Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1893. Co-operative Contracts.

Manawatu Herald, 2 May 1893, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1893. Co-operative Contracts.

The Government have now had their co-operative system in force some little time, and the public are beginning to see how impossible it becomes in practice. We do not intend to go into the question as to how far Government should be called upon to find work for those who simply stat9 they are unable to find it, but simply to reproduce from a very fair report appearing in the Hawera Star, the difficulties arising in actually working the system believed in by the Government. The writer states that he joined a gang of the unemployed in making some roads in the neighbourhood of Pahiatua, though residents would gladly hßve taken the work, b-.it actual settlers are getting too close to " social pests " to be considered at the same time as the unemployed. The writer explains that co-operation means properly a brotherhood of labour, but though its easy to prate of equality of labour in practice it does not work, and why is easily explained. The department has a happy-go-lucky way of forming a gang, some of the members may belong to the navvy class, whilst the others are schoolmasters, painters, &c, and though equal in point of being out of work are far from equal in executing it. The gangs, again, are formed of old men and young men, which is also a reason why brotherly love does not continue long with them. Given that the elders are of the very best disposition, though the unemployed of an advanced age are frequently credited with being A 1 grumblers, the strength they possess is not in comparison "with their younger mates, and therefore the value of the day's work is depreciated. The work is allotted to the gangs on the assumption that ordinary labourers can earn a fair day's pay, but as the work is by contract, the younger men feel handicapped by the older men, and the labourers by the tradesmen, and any shortcomings in the week's totals are fairly laid to the door of the weaker. It is but natural that it should be so. It is contended that the applicants should be divided so that every member of a gang was of equal physical development, and the value given for their labour should be estimated in accordance with their power, so that the unaccustomed and the weak should be paid more for similar work done by the strong and the navvy. Here we find the true weakness of the system. The " unemployed," many being so from the dislike of hard work, require payment for their labour at the same rate as would be asked by an independant labourer, and he wants to have that amount whether he is capable of giving a fair return for the money. At present, as we have shown, the Government are minimising the evil as much as thay can by mixing the gangs, but a very short time will see that altered when we shall have the fact of certain

gangs on a co operative work earning twice the wages they could obtain from private emp'oyers, whilst other gangs are starving. Then the <hvernment will be called Upon to give the old and ( weak more, so that the works carried out under the cooperative system will be very expensive, developing into charitable relief under a name which suggests manly independence. The question is a most serious one for the taxpayers to consider, as in addition to having to pay for the works executed, a larger sum than they could have be done by •• independant ' labour, there is the cost of the department to find, and the cost of conveying these tortunate " unemployed " aboul; the colony, by steamer and railways.