COST OF LIVING

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3104, 7 June 1917, Page 8

COST OF LIVING

Sir,—lt would appear that thq gentleman whom your reporter interviewed, and who disassociates himself with the action of the Council of Sl:ate Servants, is in favour of the cost of living being maintained at its present high standard. His opinions aro apparently those of the officers high up in the service, \vhos> salary puts them beyond the necessity of scraping to make both ends meet. He refers to a 10 per cent, bonus being granted last year to Civil Servants. Some Civil Sorvants did got 10 per cent, bonus, but those were the ones wjio received grants of XIOO and. upwards for "special services." The rank and file as a wliol* got very much less than 10 per cent:, and those whoso salary exceeded JJDIo per annum got no bonus or grant of any kind.

The average salary paid to State Servants is well under ,£2OO per annum, and there are some 15,000 artisans, clerks, and others in the railway service, and some 6000 postal officials whose average salary is not more than Jilao per annum, and it is the case of these rather than that of the officers of long standing that should be considered.

The State Servants' Council at its recent interview with the Acting-Prime Minister did not ask for any increase in pay, but asked for steps to be takci' to decrease the cost of living. Reduction in the cost of living could not be reserved to the State Servants only, and such was not intended. Those who allego otherwise must be in error to say the ieast.

Certain methods for reducing the cost of living were suggested to the ActingPrime Minister, but I have no doubt the State Servants' Council is not wedded to any particular method, and will be quite willing to assist the' Government in carrying out anv better scheme.—l am. etc., .\ T OT HIGH IN THE SERVICE.