UNEMPLOYABLES AND UNEMPLOYED
Sot,—Would you allow me space to reply to Rev. J. H. Shackleton Bailey's letter in the last issue of The Spectator?
If Mr. Shackleton Bailey re-reads my letter in the issue of The Spectator dated August r ith, he will find the definition of the hard core of unemployment is " the unemployables and those who stubbornly refuse to work," and that it is Mr. Hobson's definition and not mine.
However, if one considers all the available evidence on the subject carefully, it would seem to be a fairly correct definition with the number " who stubbornly refuse to work " very very small.
To quote two reports of the Pilgrim Trust : (r) Two sisters living in Leicester. One received 15s. per week unemployment allowance, the other received 17s. 6d. less 3s. 6d. expenses for a full week's work.
(2) A labourer with a family received 41s. per week U.A.B. allowance, but accepted work at exactly the same money and in all probability additional expenditure.
It is often true that an unemployed person is offered a job at much the same money as the benefit to which he or she is entitled when unemployed, and such jobs are some- times not accepted, with the result that such people are soon referred to as those who " stubbornly refuse to work." This is very often true of the kind of pay offered farm labourers and domestic servants, for whom apparently there is such a colossal demand.
" The unemployables," however, who form the bulk of the hard core are by no means " workshy," but arc men generally past middle age who simply cannot get work. They have been allowed to rust through no fault of their own.
There is no question of dealing with large numbers of " sluggards " or " laziness," and Christian people are not being asked by me to encourage " vice," but to realise that this is God's world and that we are all His children, whether unemployed or not. Believing this, I humbly suggest that those unfortunate enough to be unemployed deserve the kind of Christian treatment in keeping with the brotherhood of man under the Fatherhood of God. This may not necessarily be in keeping with that " premium upon industry and efficiency " as interpreted and abused by many supporters of "the much-criticised capitalist system," who wax fat as a result of industriously and efficiently sweating labour.
In conclusion, the N.A.A.U. wants to sec unemployment and all that it means conquered. This means the raising of
the standard of living for the majority and not " maintaining the present high standard," as suggested by Mr. Shackleton Bailey.
According to reliable figures, 8o per cent. of wage-earners today receive £250 per annum or less, with the large majority " earning " £125 or less, and on top of this there are well over a million and a quarter unemployed registered and un- registered. To me not a very high " standard of living."
I am sure Mr. Shackleton Bailey would agree that if today, instead of so much hate, suspicion and doubt, there was a little more love, consideration and kindliness and a will to understanding our less fortunate fellows, there would be found in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all
Previous page
