PAY OF NURSES.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20272, 25 June 1931, Page 6

PAY OF NURSES.

■ ♦- —-■ CITY COUNCILS VIEWS. LETTER TO HOSPITAL BOARD. The subject of tho salaries paid to trainee nurses, which was so.much i" evidence during tho recent local bodies' elections was before the North Canterbury Hospital Board again yesterday, j following the receipt of a letter tronv the Town Clerk (Mr J. S. Neville) regarding the amount of the levy to be paid to the Board by the City Council The letter was as follows:—Kef erring i to the statement of receipts and exJ pendituro, and the information tiiat the Council's contribution is fixed at j £23,988 lis Id for the current year, ! I have to inform you that while tho Council appreciates the fact that a reduction nas been made in the levy, the City would rather pay a little more in- tho way of contribution than have I the pav of the trainees reduced to «s 3d per week.. | Mr J. K. Archer said that the salaries of the nurses had acti ally been 'reduced to a greater extent than was set out in the Town Clerk's letter. Superannuation Payments. Mr J S. Barnett stated that tae wages of trainees had actually been reduced to 7s Id per week. He considered that the method of subscribing to the superannuation fund was wrong. So far as other similar bodies were concerned, participants in the superannuation scheme were given the opportunity of paying on a higher or * lower scale, but in the present instance the girls were expected, to pay on the higher scale. The position was j therefore grossly unfair, because the amount now being paid by the trainees Would have no effect at all on their position when they ultimately retirea. If a- servant of -he Board was close to retirement, and there was no prospect of promotion, he would bo wise to pav on the higher scale, but the case was entirely different so far as the girls were concerned. "The girls get 7s Id per week—no more and no less." said Mr Archer, who added that it was monstrous that girls should receive such A salary. They did not want to put away out of such a small sum, but to spend The secretary of the Eoard (Mr W. H. Wharton), said that the Government had requested the Board not to alter the amount of. superannuation. If the 10 per cent, cut were only temporary the additional amount subscribed in the meantime could be credited to the sub- N scriber and would be in the nature of a refund. Question of Procedure. Mr L. B. Evans stated that Mr Barnett should have made his complaint to the Finance Committee instead of to the Board. The matter could then have been looked into. Mr Barnett said that he had done so with no intention of being discourteous to Mr Evans. He would have brought (he matter before the Committee had he received the information as to the salaries in time, but it had come into his possession only that morning. . Mr Evans said that if the City Council would collect from thr ratepayers extra taxes ?for wages the Board would hand the amount on to the uurses. Mr H. EI. Holland expressed the opinion that certain members of the Board did not seem to be conversant with the details of the superannuation scheme, • which cost '-he Board £4OOO a year in round figures. If they did not approve of it the scheme should be dropped and the Board thus save itself a cousiderable amount of expenditure. Two or. three members protested against Mr Holland's remarks and tho discussion dropped wheri it was decided to receive tho Town Clerk's letter. Britain imports :£ 24,000,000 worth of fruit every year.