asked the Minister for Finance whether in view of the difficulties caused to workers on bog development and employment schemes by reason of the fact that they are paid fortnightly, he will arrange that such workers be paid weekly.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Payment of Workers on Bog Development and Employment Schemes.
19.
It has always been the practice to pay workers on bog development and employment schemes fortnightly and I am not aware that it causes difficulties as suggested by the Deputy. Fortnightly payments are I understand also the rule with almost all county councils. The proposal to pay workers on bog development and employment schemes weekly instead of fortnightly has been very fully considered on a number of occasions, but it is regretted that it has not been found possible to adopt this alternative. Weekly payments would (a) necessitate an increase in clerical staffs at a cost out of all proportion to the benefits likely to be secured and (b) mean that technical staff would have to devote an undue proportion of their time to paysheet work at the expense of supervision.
Why do you not pay them monthly and save more money?
Is the Minister aware that the Kildare County Council pay their road workers each week but that if they take on people from the Labour Exchange for relief schemes they pay them only fortnightly, and in some cases only every three weeks? Does the Minister not agree that there is a grave hardship where a person is signed on from the Labour Exchange on a Tuesday, goes to work and does not get paid until the next Friday fortnight? Surely it ought to be possible in the year 1960 to devise some method by which that person can be given some payment within a period of three weeks?
I am aware that Kildare County Council is one of the five county councils which pay their workers weekly but I am also aware that the same county council is not too anxious to take on payments of minor employment schemes weekly.
If, so far as the council in Kildare is concerned, it is the officials who are objecting, then I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is their duty to carry out the wishes of the people and not to formulate these fanciful policies for themselves.
There is more than that involved. There is the extra cost involved. In many cases, the schemes are administered by the county council as agents for the Special Employment Schemes Office and the amount payable would not justify their going to the extra expense involved. These are seasonal workers mainly.
Why does he use this argument of cost in the paying of wages against the poorest, the most exploited section of the community? The same argument could be used against paying Deputies monthly or yearly.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the cost to local authorities who are required to pay out home assistance in these cases?
All these things have been taken into consideration on several occasions and the demand for weekly payment on minor employment schemes is not general; the amount of inconvenience involved is very little and it is very much exaggerated by those who are advocating this change.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not consider it strange that there has not been any demand by industrial workers for fortnightly pay?
I did not say there was not a demand, but I did say there was not a general demand for this to be paid weekly and many of the county councils are still paying their workers fortnightly.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how long this system of fortnightly payment has been in operation?
There is need for more relief grants now.
There is not; the number of unemployed is fewer.
They are all in England.
The fact remains there are fewer registered unemployed.
They are employed in London; they are not registered here.