RACECOURSE MEALS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVI, Issue 30, 5 February 1925, Page 7

RACECOURSE MEALS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Would you kindly gi an fc mc _. little space to reply to "R.W." on the question of racecourse meals. One would think, when your correspondent states that_ "at 10.15 all sit down to breakfast," it was as orderly as going to lunch at a hotel, instead of which it is more in the nature of a Btampede, for all cannot possibly get seats. The breakfast consists mainly of a large dish of hash—without any variation at each meeting—which is expected to go round about 50 women. Is this a sufficient meal for these women to work on from 10 till 5? They have to work at an awful rush all day, as anyone frequenting these tearooms will agree. The remuneration has been gradually reduced to 12/6, while the work, if anything, has become more strenuous.—l am, etc., KALR TREATMENT.

SINGLE TEACHERS. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Would you kindly allow mc to say a word or two in answer to Bachelor Teacher" and "Provision" in answer to their unreasonable views regarding salaries of single and married teachers? 1 am single, a teacher, and, unfortunately, a woman, and am considered toy some people to be rather capable. After fourteen years' continuous service I receive the munificent salary of £201 per annum; with this 1 provide a home for my aged parents, which fcavcs mc with £20 per year to "live on." Now, do you know any single men teachers, "with the same service record, receiving a similar salary? 1 think not. 1 should he mighty glad to be in their shoes. IE only 1 could materialise a hucslband up would go my salary right away. By the way. I have marrietl brothers and sisters whose contributions to the home are nil.—l am. etc., A MERE WOMAN. (To the Editor.) Sir, —I cannot allow the views of your correspondents "Bachelor Teacher" and "Provision," to go unchallenged. In the first place, from a national point of view, the State, it seems to mc, would not ha justified in giving to the bachelor—teacher or other employee—i the same remuneration to spend on himself as the man with a wife and famil.y to support. It is true that differentiation apparently gives rise to a breach of the principle of equal pay for equal service, but only apparently. To my mind, the State very justly recognises the man who marries and more especially the man who brings up a family as adding very materially to the services be renders in his daily occupation. It is a fact that private business firms, as far as possible, remunerate their married employees more liberally than their single hands—recognising in the former steadier and usually more reliable workers. T am afraid my code of family morals differs radically from that of "Provision." The policy of looking upon one's children as a mc-uiiß of sustenance in one's lazy-hood, and ns a monetary investment from which olio expects im | accumulated cash return is, as your corI respondent should know, a curse that ttie State has, for many years, been Neekin- to eradicate trom our national I life. ".Surely Mr. "Provision" knows I Hint it is i-ucli a |>"licy that takes children from school and blights their careers at (heir most impressionable age. Personally. J rco.igiiKc' iiu claim upon mc to repay my parents cither the capital or the interest, they lime foregone

in my upbringing. Uf course, were tlir-y in misfortune, it would be my duty to help them to the best of my ability. Si far as my own children are concerned, T think I can say truthfully that I try to give them the best I can afford, always putting their interests 1.,-forc my own, and never recording the cost. I should feci unhappy were it otherwise; and what I desire in return is that they do as much for their own bairns in years to come. —I am. etc., A DADDY DOMINIK.