NURSES' WAGES

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21465, 6 May 1935, Page 18

NURSES' WAGES

to TUB ettT'.»« or THIS PR«*S. Sir —Under the above heading you publl'rh a letter signed "Hospital Nurse,'' and claiming to speak for the ••fellow-nurses'' of the writer as well a? herself. How many does she speak for, all the nurses in the Public Hospital, or part only? If she wishes to transfer her vote; from Labour to the Citizens, that is her own business. Possibly Labour will survive her action. Certainly at previous elections ! :hv dare not have publicly announced ibaf. she was a supporter of Labour. • Whi'.t right has she to lecture hospital patients generally, and those from Sydenham particularly, l'or leaving the hospital without thanking the '•.w-es for the services rendered to ! i;cra! Such thanks should, of .course, !>• sjiven. and sometimes they are, and when they are not the Sydenham pt-ople are no more remiss than other folk. I presume "Hospital Nurse" mngles out Sydenham for censure because Sir Hugh Acland got a bit of barrack at hla Sydenham meeting. If ine nurse is upset by barrack, she Miouiri stay at home. Dr. Acland seems to have enjoyed it. He indicated that at Woolston. As to giving thanks for benefits received. I wonder if "Hospital Nurse" always does it. At any rate, E have often heard Sydenham people speak highly of the way in which they hove been treated by the nurses at our Public Hospital. Thw most serious and ..offensive part r>f the letter of "Hospital Nurse" is that in which she discusses the wage Question. She- allies herself with the ■wage-cutters, uses their stock arguments, and cmDloys insulting terms to do so. and virtually advocates poor pay for the iunior members of her profession. That is an astonishing thing for a nurse to do. At best the pay of nursfs i?i low. and whv they should ask for it to be kept low. or rver. made lower, passes mv cornoreViension. .Moreover, "Hospital Nurse fthou'd realise that tiie ouestion of wages is a pohev matter, whicn divides !h'' Hospital Board into conflicting groin's. and which tiie board Hs.-lf m"*<t decide. If nurses are wisp ♦hey will keeu out of the dispute. All ♦he tune f have been on th" Hospital Hoard f i'-'ve t'-ifd In hefriend th" nurses. arid 1 shall continue my efforts mi jfojt" of the stupid letter of "Hospital Nurse." with its assertion That • has abandoned the Labour party. .T. K. ARCHER. (. ;!1.r,. I <•> ' ; i I ' * '• » * pk««" Sir.- - 1 wa-; very interested m the i, (.) "Hospital Nurse." Fancy a very earnest supporter of the Labour party's views and then sudfj.'iiiv taking a great fancy for Dr. A viand and his party because they had been kind enough to cut her wages and boarding allowance, From her' jatirical remarks about patients from Sydenham or.e must assume th.it -he ts one of the superior type from 'he top end of our fair city, where biid«e parties abound and they cuddle poodles i:i place of children. My assumption is further born out by her reinarks about Karitnne nurses paying £3O for then- training. Ore of the medical tnen who is -■v.ni'lirej in tiie interests of tiie Citijr,>iiAssociation remarked recently .it ISoekenham that it was never intended that, ho.-pimi nursing should be a profusion for the daughters of working. rrople: possibly "Hospital Nurse' olds this same view, and that this profession should be exclusively for 1h" d.imjh'ers of people of n.eans. Being tii.; daughter of a working man who has had his standard of living considerably reduced through wayo cutting and the smashing of the Arbitration Court, 1 know the struggle my parent; have had t.o get me into the hospital for training, and naturally j feel the effects of the wage cuts imposed by the bo:ird and think them most unjust, considering the amount at work we have to do and the social service we arc rendering. "Hospital Nurse" says she lias discussed this matter with her fellow nurse;:, but it must have been with H few of her own kidney, as the time ?<as been too short since tiie Sydenham meeting. J. for one have never been consulted, unci I know where I and a large number also stand. We are nipporterw of Labour, as we realise ;f is our i.niy hope of .'letting justice. ' Hospital Nurse" say:; that Dr. Acland putting into practice the true ideals of socialism. If tins is so, he must bj leading a double life, as he i> not preaching them. —Yours, etc., SYDENHAM NURSE. May 4, t SS.>. ro -jus swo'ii or rue yi(«.-s.i. Sir, I have read, with interest, the letter in this morning's paper signed "Hospital Nurse. ' Although I was not among the number who talked the matter over yesterday, I endorse all she hay said regarding our training and salary, and also I congratulate her on her courage and ability to write such an honest and straightforward letter. The only meeting of candidates for election, which 1 have been able to attend, was one held in Spreydon, where Councillor Howard reeled off a tirade of abuse of Dr. Acland. 1 am a nurse, too, and still in training at the Public Hospital, where we fK".; Dr. Acland's work, see what he does for the poor and needy, and we know ins worth. Dr. Acland will suit me very well br Mayor of the city, and Mr Armstrong, juu.. as a councillor, who will provide a good stimulant to any party. Yours, etc., ANOTHER nurse. May 1. I ill). ro ma km to* or ths trewsSir.—lt was refreshing to read in your issue of to-day's date the excellent, and sensible letter signed "Hospital Nurse." I am the father of two nurses. The elder was trained in Christehurch Hospital and commenced her training more than 20 years ago, when pay, hours, holidays, and other conditions were very different from what they now arc. She is most grateful fos' the free training she received, and being a woman of culture, is most heartily in favour of Dr. Acland's candidature. The younger, a t'lunket nurse, put in months at Si. Helens, and then .i\ months at tiie Karitane Hospital, Dunedin. In both institutions she received no pay and had to provide her own uniforms. She. too, is grateful for •he training she received, and is going hands down for Sir Hugh Acland and the citizens' candidates at the forthcoming election.— Yours, etc., •TK KOROHEKE. May 4. 1935

SIR HUGH ACLAND 10 111 «DIT0» 0? THE fttSSS. Sir, —Speaking as a nurse with five years' service in the Christchurch Hospital, and also with the same amount of war service, having been constantly in contact with Dr. Acland, I feel that I should be lacking in common gratitude if I did not publicly bear testimony to Dr. Acland's unfailing sympathy and gratuitous attention, not only to nurses, but to soldiers and all sufferers—sympathy, indeed, that urged him to work both night and day, as the thousands of soldiers who came' under his care at Brockenhurst and elsewhere can verify. Like all other members of my profession coming into contact with Dr. Acland I am glad indeed that our noble King, in honouring him, had a better understanding of his great services and wonderful ability than those who are not prepared to support him in his present effort. Doubtless, Dr. Acland, when consenting to enter municipal politics, was prepared for a certain amount of strong speaking, and even adverse criticism; but I venture the opinion that after his manly and forbearing opening speech no one could have foreseen that he would nave been subjected to such contemptible vituperation as he has received at the hands of some of his opponents. To attribute wrong motives to such a mati is inconceivable. His whole life speaks in refutation of such aspersions.—Yours, etc., S L. CLARK, N.Z.A.N.S. May 4. 1935.