TEACHERS’ SALARIES

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 271, 21 August 1925, Page 15

TEACHERS’ SALARIES

“EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK” DIFFERENTIATION OPPOSED The greater part of yesterday’s sitting of the New Zealand Educational Institute Conference was occupied in discussing a proposal that the policy of the institute should bo altered to provide that in any scheme of salaries for teachers the basic principle should be that of differentiation for men and women. Mr. J. Caughley (Director of Education) said he would like to explain why the explicit differentiation had been made in the last scale of salaries. For the five years prior to the grading system coming into force, the salaries of women assistant teachers were £lOO less than for men. When the grades were reduced from seven to three, the Department was told that it must not pay out more money in salaries than had been paid under the old system. Where, he asked, were they to find the money to raise the salary of all the women teachers up to the maximum of grade 7? The Department had to make a differentiation, but they had only adopted that which had been in operation before. It wns not fair to say that the Department was introducing a. new policy. The differentiation was less now than it had been since the inauguration of the grading scheme. The Department got the criticism and the complaints,. but they never received any practical suggestions as to how higher salaries could be paid without increasing the grant for salaries; Women teachers occupied the most remunerative position of women in any profession in the Dominion; this could not be said of male teachers. The president (Mr. F. A. Garry) said that delegates had to make up their minds whether they would accept principle or jiractice in considering the question. "A Matter of Principle.” Mr. J. F. Hawke (Otago) moved: That with rejjaH to any scheme of salaries for teachers the basic principle be that of differentiation for men and women." He said that ho had been told that this question would leave an aftermath of resentment anfi bitterness. He could not agree with' this, as it was purely a matter of principle. It wns an economic question. What kept a single woman teacher would not keep a married teacher. Seventy-five per cent, of the assistant teachers in Dunedin had to teach at. technical colleges in order to keep their families. Was the principle of equal pay for equal work sound in theory, principle, and science? Mr. H. C. Jones (Otago) seconded the remit, remarking that qne of the chief causes of dissatisfaction with the present scale was that teachers did not know where they were. Mr. A. (Murdoch; (Auckland) said that the only' way to make the salaries of men and women the same would be either to raise the salaries of women or to reduce those of men He did not believe that even the women 'would support the latter, course. Women’s Viewpoint. Miss Sutherland (Otago) said that there was a difference of opinion on the subject of equal pay for equal work in Otago. Differentiation had never been asked for; it had been sprung upon the teachers by the Department. The women teachers of Otago held that differentiation was a retrograde step. They were quite prepared that an increased allowance shoulil be. made to married teachers, but they did not want to sup- I ,>ort differentiation at the cost of cheapening women's services. The teaching of girls was just as important as the teaching of boys. Women resented being classed as the inferior article. Miss Newton (Auckland) said that principle and not pocki-t must govern them if they were to be true to tho traditions of the past. Miss Finlayson (Wellington) contended I that to pass the mol ion would cause dissension in the institute. .How, she askfd, would tho men receive a proposal that women should receive higher salaries than men ? “Outcome of the War.” I .Mr. A. C- Blake (Wellington) said they had never heard much of the principle of equal pay for equal work until the war period, when it became an economic question. It had been considered by the

Imperial War Council, who had fixed the basic wage of a woman at much less than that of a man. The result of the adoption of equal pay for equal work in America had been to drive men out of the teaching profession. Any compromise would be at the expense of tho men, as only a limited amount of money was available for teachers’ salaries.

Mr. G. Lawn (North ' Canterbury) said the basic principle underlying teachers’ salaries should be the value of service to the State. Were they going to accept the principle that tho education vote was a fixed unalterable amount? Women’s voices: No.

Proceeding, the. speaker said he was strongly opposed to any differentiation. Ha advocated equal pay for equal work. Mr. G. F. Griffiths (Southland) said that what they wanted in this country was teachers; it did not matter whether they wers men or women. The time had come when they would have to take a different viewpoint' regarding salaries. There should be no differentiation between the teacher who taught the rudiments of arithmetic and the one who taught in a secondary school. Mr AV. AV. Hill (Auckland) moved as an amendment, that further consideration of the question bo referred to the next annual meeting, and that in the meantime a deputation wait upon the Minister of Education with the object of enlisting Ms sympathy and support in the efforts ths institute was making to formulate a more satisfactory salaries’ scheme.

Mr. F. E. Blakey (Auckland) seconded the amendment. Mr. Murdoch declared that it was cowardice to refuse to face the issue.

Mr. F. L. Combs moved as a further amendment that tho whole subject be referred to a recess committee. Miss Hodgson seconded this proposal, which was carried bv 38 votes to 34. It was decided that the committee should be nominated by the incoming executive.