P. AND T. AND LABOUR ALLIANCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 86, 11 April 1922, Page 8

P. AND T. AND LABOUR ALLIANCE.

(To th? Editor.l .-Sir. Though the linking of the :!\ and T. servants with the Alliance of .Labour must be condemned by any right-thinking person, I think it behoves everyone to condemn tirst the cause of so line a body of State employees looking to outside organisations for assistance. Your paper, in a leading article, stated that the P. and T. officers received definite privileges, and as a disinterested person 1 have endeavoured to ascertain what they are. and regret to say I cannot see any privileges worth mentioning. On the other hand I can see Ihat a great injustice is being done 10 a service from which the publicexpect so much. The most that can 'be said for the benefits they enjoy is that they receive a few days' extra holidays in the year and payment for sickne_s, which however is limited to a certain time and deducted from their annual leave. 1 have questioned the Harbour Board officials and also City Council employees, and I find in comparison to, say. the postman (I choose the postman because the "Herald's" leading article singles out the postman in condemning the pact), is not a« -well off as any City Council employee either from a monetary point of view or otherwise. The dissatisfaction in the postal service is well founded. The Harbour Board and City Council have decided not to interfere with their employees' wages. The Arbitration Court hag decided ">/ per week reduction to covjr the reduction in the cost of living, yet I find our postal service, who are lesser paid than tlie general la_ourer, are suffering 7/ per week reduction, and in July this is to be increased to 14/ per week reduction. Why the penalty? Why should the public expect such a high standard of labour from the postal employee and concur with the Government in imposing such harsh injustice on its underpaid employees? I find 7/ per week is taken from the man earning £4 o r £5 per week, and precisely the same from the man earning £9 per week. Something is morally wrong here. To add to his wages is absolutely out of the question for the postal employee, as no overtime, is permitted, and whereas a postman cannot possibly earn more than £4 10/ per week, a tram. wayman can earn on an average _5 10/ to £6 per week, and the Harbour Board officials have various means of increasing their stipulated wage. The public and the Press should join in condemning the unjust penalty imposed on a. loyal and faithful service and should be prepared to pay for what we want, then the conditions would not prevail to drive decent people to extremism.—l am. etc., FAIR PLAY.