GRADING PUBLIC SERVICE STAFFS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 11, 7 October 1927, Page 12

GRADING PUBLIC SERVICE STAFFS

Sir,—With icgard to a paragraph rc the above in The Dominion on Septeni, ber 28, I cannot see how a grading committee comprised of clerical men can grade engineers, draughtsmen, and technical men. Although not questioning the competence of the committee to judge the clerical staff, they are not capable of judging the qualifications of engineers, draughtsmen, and technical men. The committee does not understand the -first principle of engineering, and it will mean that the important part that the technical man plays in the service will not be recognised, that the pay will be no better than at present, and that the smart young fellows will either have to leave the service or go in for clerical work.

Then, again, you cannot class the mechanical side of the railways with the Public Works or Post Office. How can clerical men know what experience and technical knowledge is required to design, say, a modern bridge, a locomotive, or a modern railway carriage ? A man has to serve, say, five years of real hard work in the shop, and after work he has to attend the university, and when he has finished his apprenticeship he still keeps going to the university if he expects to become anything like an engineer. Clerical men don’t do this; they have during their cadetship a comparatively easy time compared with a technical man. What encouragement is given to men to work hard in the shops, to get in the D. 0., and find clerks are paid more? One asks, is engineering worth while ? What is happening, Sir, is that we are losing all the smart engineering fellows in the service; they leave the country or go into the better paid businesses. Until the Government recognises the pracical value of the technical man and the important part he takes, blunders will still come. What should be done, and only fair to every technical man, is that he be qualified by outside experts. —I am, etc., E.M.I.A. Wellington, October 3.