September 821 1 , 1 25 1 ,946 October 781 1 , 181 1 ,962 November 748 1 , 178 1 ,926 December 866 1 ,222 2,088 1895 January 848 1 , 138 1 ,986 February 863 1 ,384 2,247 March 893 1 ,317 2,210 April 883 1 , 234 2 , 1 17 May 875 1 ,337 2,212 June 881 1 ,559 2,440 July 806 1 ,686 2,492 August 818 1 ,766 2,584
Average Monthly Number 840 1 ,344 2,184
Workers who were given employment under the Lands Department were engaged in improving public lands in preparation for subdivision. The Lands Department was responsible for the construction of country roads (Lloyd, 1900). Some of the subdivisions were used to settle some of the unemployed with state assistance under the 'alternative scheme' . Another source of employment for unemployed workers under the Department of Lands was in afforestation during the planting season. Table 8 below sets out the wages earned by workers given employment on the cooperative works scheme.
TABLE 8: DAILY WAGES ON COOPERATIVE WORKS SCHEME
FOR VARIOUS CLASSES IN IN COMPARISON
WITH ORDINARY WAGES
Class of Workers
1894·
1896
Navvies 7s 2d Concreters 7s 2d Fencers 7s 5d Bushmen 7s 7d Labourers 6s 6d 7s 8dPlate - Layers and Ballasters 7s 10d
Carpenters (Buildings) 8s 3d 8s l d Painters 8s 3d 8s 3d Carpenters (Railways) 8s 3d 8s 8d Tunnel-men 9s 10d Slaters l Os 4d Masons 9s 6d l Os 8d Bricklayers 9s 6d l Os 8d Plumbers 8s 6d lOs 10d Plasterers 20s Od
Source: A]HR, 1896 D-1: 3;
-NZOYB, 1895: 161
The wages earned by unemployed workers under the cooperative works scheme remained similar to those on offer in ordinary employment as a result of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1894 which facilitated the
provision of minimum wages and conditions for all workers whose unions were registered under the Act. The Government offered contracts to the unemployed men on the basis of the earnings of those in regular employment in their class.6 Thus under the cooperative works scheme workers who were able to get employment did not experience a drop in their wages relative to other workers in the private sector.
The success of the Liberal Government in contalOlOg unemployment was highlighted by an influential member of the Unemployed Advisory Board of New South Wales, Archdeacon Langley, who investigated labour conditions in New Zealand in 1899 (Lloyd, 1900). The report credited the cooperative works scheme with success when it noted: "the fact that since the adoption of the system, eight years ago, there has been no unemployed agitation in New Zealand" (JDL, 1900: 169). The proactive approach taken by the Liberal Government meant that as workers registered with the Department of Labour, attempts were made to find them employment either in the private sector or on government public works projects.
The cooperative works scheme had obvious advantages for the government despite the cost being somewhat higher than under the contract system. Firstly, the system eliminated the day to day supervision of unemployed men given employment on public works as the men were both contractors and labourers (Lloyd, 1900). In any case the men were paid only for work they actually performed (Gibbons, 1970). Secondly, the system cut out the contractor's profit as the men under the cooperative works scheme were paid the same amount as they would have earned in wages. The price of the work was based on the average rate of wages current in the district in which work was undertaken (Irvine and Alpers, 1902). Finally, the contracts entered into between the government and various groups of workers were not legally binding on both parties as was the case with ordinary contracts.
This third advantage of the cooperative works scheme was summed up by Mr Richard Seddon, Prime Minister and Minister of Public Works when he said:
Should any circumstances arise rendering it desirable to curtail expenditure, it is simply necessary to reduce the number of men, the agreements with men providing that the Government is at liberty to order the work to be discontinued at any time without payment of compensation (A]HR, 1893 D-5A: 3-4).
6 For detailed discussion on impact of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1984 on workers wages and conditions of employment, see Drummond, 1907, Chapter XVI .
Although this flexibility was advantageous to the government, lack of employment security on the cooperative works scheme was a source of concern to workers. It reflected the continued application of the principle of 'less eligibility' , though in a more limited way. At times men were simply laid off as in the case presented by Mr G.V. Pearce, Member of Parliament for Patea.
D'Jring the last few months I have seen more men carrying swags in the country districts than at any other time during the last twenty years . . . because in my district during the last two or three weeks, on the Stratford-Onarue Railway line, they have dismissed some two hundred men from the cooperative works, and on the cooperative roadworks in the Patea and Waitotara counties nearly every man has been dismissed . .. I say, if the vote is exhausted, it shows bad administration on the part of the Government, who should have conserved the vote during summer, so as not to dismiss the men just at the beginning of winter, when it is known that the winter is likely to be a bad one for the men (NZPD, 1909: 1 1 9).
Mr Pearce further claimed that the men were dismissed while the work they were doing was half finished (NZPD, 1909). While the figures were disputed by the Minister of Public Works, state suspension of projects under construction was at times a contributor to the unemployment problems. The Minister of Public Works, Hall-Jones insisted that: "public works of the colony are not carried on for the sake of the unemployed, but to develop the country and promote settlement" (Reeves, 1902: 236). This policy position was also made clear to the workers by Mr Richard Seddon soon upon taking office as Minister of Public Works in 1891. During his tour in Christchurch he told the leaders of the unemployed that, "they would be disappointed if they thought that the Government would carry on non-reproductive works simply for the sake of finding employment for men out of work" (Drummond, 1907: 1 52). Gibbons (1970) notes that the Government never deviated from this policy; the cooperative works scheme had as its major objective getting various projects completed.
The other limitation of the cooperative works scheme, from the workers' position was that while the bulk of the unemployed men resided in cities and towns, the majority of work offered was in country districts. This meant that workers who were given employment under the scheme were completely cut off from alternative employment that might have become available in towns.
TABLE: UNEMPLOYED MEN GIVEN WORK UNDER THE COOPERATIVE WORKS SCHEME: MONTHLY AVERAGE FOR EACH
Y
earNumber Given Employment
1894 1 ,869 1895 2,455 1896 2,293 1897 2,493 , 1898 2,725 1899 2,975 1900 3,408 1901 5,213 1902 2,649 1903 4,226 1904 3,356 1905 4,564 1906 7,1 19 1907 5,281 1908 6,508 1909 7,063 1910 4,926 191 1 6,343 1912 6,47 1
Source: ]DL, 1894-1912
It can be seen from Table 9 above, that between 1900 and 1912, except for 1902, the numbers of men given employment under the cooperative works scheme remained above 3,000 per month, the highest figure being in 1 906. According to the NZOYB (1927) statistics on state relief works provided to unemployed men lack comparability at different dates owing to changes in the conditions under which public works was granted. While the statistics may show for any period of time the actual number of unemployed men who were employed on public works, they do not show the percentage which
that number represented of the total working male population at the time. These figures may at best be regarded as indices of fluctuations in the labour market (NZOYB, 1 927).
The Liberal Government, in an effort to share the burden of unemployment relief with Local Authorities, gave a subsidy of pound for pound for projects undertaken to create employment for the unemployed men (AJHR, 1895 H- 6). Consistent with their role during the period covered in Chapter Three, local authorities continued to play a significant role in alleviating unemployment. For example, "when the closing of operations on the Waipara-Cheviot and Midland railways threw men out of work . . . Timaru and Christchurch provided employment" (Scotter, 1965: 87). Seddon was eager for Local Authorities to adopt the cooperative works scheme, especially where grants-in-aid towards the construction of roads and other public works were provided by the central government. He stated that:
The adoption of this system would . . . have the effect of more easily regulating the labour market. Thus, when there was a dearth of private employment, the number of men engaged by the Government and the local authorities could be increased; and when private employment was plentiful, correspondingly, the number of men employed by the Government and the local authorities could be decreased, thus equalising the work and insuring a fair return during the whole of the year (A]HR, 1895 D-1 : v).
The cooperative works scheme provided a means of Cpartially) regulating the labour market whilst allowing necessary work to be performed at competitive prices to the state.