P. AND T. SERVICE

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 34, 4 November 1929, Page 6

P. AND T. SERVICE

THE SALARIES QUESTION PRIME MINISTER’S STATEMENT CRITICISED ASSOCIATION’S CASE REVIEWED Th* executive of the New. Zealand Post ■ and Telegraph Officers’ Association has is- » aped the following reply to the Primo Minister’s recent statement on the salary question:— . .',•, "First and foremost, the statement issued by the Prime • Minister to the Press for general publication in nowise answers the case “represented ito: tho Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General, individually and jointly, by the executive of the Post and Telegraph Employees’ Association on behfllf of all sections of tho Post and Telegraphs Staffs,” the statement commences. . “So far as the present Government is concerned, the Post and Telegraph Association has on no occasion made representations for the restoration of the salary cuts. The change of Government so nearly? ap* proximated the quinquennial date for reclassification of positions and review* of tho salary schedules that the question , of restoring salary cuts was abandoned in favour of urging a comprehensive revaluation of salaries on the true basis of the woijth of services'rendered on present-day money values. - .? - ■ “Cuts” not Justified. “The association has always maintained that the salary cuts were not justified when imposed in 102”, neither were the cumulative effects, through officers remaining stationary ever since, visualised by legislators at the time. The-comparative rate of ■’ promotion In the respective services has made these effects more marked in the Post and Telegraph service than in other, services, and whereas the late Prime Minister stated at election time that practically every officer had, by increments of promotion, regained the lost salary, approximately 50 per cent, of the original officers in the Post and Telegraph service who were re- ■ duced to the lower maxima have remained stationary over since and all officers are still suffering by reason of the lower maxima attainable. >' “Therefore, had the previous Government restored salaries to the 1920 level, the Post and Telegraph Association would have still had justification for expecting and requesting that this year’s quinquennial review of positions and salaries should bo assessed on the increased output and responsibility that expanding services have demanded of every officer. : “On tho occasions that the Post and Telegraph Association interviewed the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General individually, tho due date (April 1, 1929) for reclassification to take effect was approaching, and the gist of the representations made was that the Secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department should be Instructed to undertake the quinquennial review upon considerations of the value of services rendered, and without hindrance by the Uniformity’s Committee’s personnel or its policy of uniform salary schedules for all State services. As previously pointed out, uniform salary schedules do not produce comparative uniform remuneration : when applied to services where numbers and opportunities for promotion are disproportionate. Both Ministers acknowledged this fact, and the justice of the gen? era! case presented, and they promisedtthat the matter would receive careful consideration. The Prime Minister stated that he did not know of the Uniformity Committee’s existence, that he did not see the need for such a body, and he would inquire into its past operations. Attempt to Reopen Discussion*. “When no replies were forthcoming from either the Prime Minister or the Postmas- ■ ter-General, and when nothing eventuated on or after tho due date for reclassification to be put into effect, the Post and Telegraph Association made attempts to reopen discussions with the Government. ’ “On August 1G last, tho Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General together received a big deputation from the association’s biennial conference, when the spokesman for the association prefaced his case with the statement that the deputation was not asking for the restoration of the salary cuts, but for the reclassification of the service together with an improvement in the salary schedules. In reply, the Prime Minister agreed with the ' representations as to the want of fairness in the treatment of the Post and Telegraph service, which, he stated, was a ‘clogged’ department—clogged on account of the number of its employees and clogged on account of the difficulty created when the transfer of officers to other departments was stopped. He also stated that the matters were entitled to receive the fullest and most careful consideration from tho Postmaster-General and himself. He was not in a position to give an affirmative answer that day, but he hoped within the next fortnight to be able, to reply definitely. “As the promised reply was not received, a letter was sent to the Prime Minister on September 20 asking for it, but beyond acknowledgment, the only statement received was to the effect that the decision had not yet been reached in the matter. "Owing to the Prime Minister’s subsequent illness, the next request for a reply was made by a deputation to the Hon. G. W. Forbes, Acting Leader, on October 21. The Minister was unaware at that stage that our case was not bound up In the question of the restorati n of the salary cuts, and he undertook to see the Prime Minister to endeavour to secure a specific reply within one or two days. “Next day our association learnt that a general statement regarding Civil servants’ salaries was being released by tho Prime Minister for publication in the newspapers. At 12 noon a request was made personally to the Hon. Mr. Forbes for a copy of the statement before it was given general publication; but this request was refused. Consequently, our association was placed in the position of getting from the newspapers the first information on what purported to be a reply to our representations (among others) made personally to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister’s Statement Corrected. “From the statement thus obtained we find unjler the heading ‘General Increases Sought’ that the Prime Minister is reported as saying: ‘What the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association really have represented to the Government is not that the salary cuts be restored, and not that the service be reclassified, but that all the salary scales, from message-boys to executive officers, be increased generally; and the representations made to me by the representatives of the three parties (political) were in the direction that special consideration in this regard should be given to the officers of the Post and Telegraph Department.’ Our association affirms that we did not ask for -the restoration of the salary cut, and we issue the correction that we stressed the request for reclassification ot the service in conjunction with improved salary schedules for all Tanks. The mention made by representatives of the three parties, refers to a committee ot Parliamentarians which was sbt up from a general assemblage of members ot the House that had listened to a statement of the Post and Telegraph case by association officials. “That committee did not get an audience, with the Prime Minister till over a month from the first attempt, and when It did make Its representations In support ot tho case of Post and Telegraph officers, the Prime Minister bound its members over to secrecy until such time as he made an open statement to Parliament. Since the Press statement has appeared, our association has learnt that when the Prime Minister met the committee referred to, the Secretary ot the Department was also present, and he put a different aspect on some of the matters which tended to discredit the Information from our association on which the committee was making its representations. Without knowing how far this applied In detail, our, association can affirm that every item of information given the Parliamentary Committee can be substantiated in full. k "A«tonn<Hng Assertion.” “Under the heading ‘Special Commltttee’s Report,' the statetaient makes reference to . the various Government Departments now having the same scale ot salaries, and the sentence concludes with the astounding assertion that 'Government could not consider giving an improved scale to one, section ot the service while denying it to others.’ We ask:’Why not? All, the evidence is available from a perusal and comparison . of elassiflcatton lists to show that tlie retention of uniform salary schedules is untenable. Officers of from 20 to 25 years’ service In the Post and Telegraph Department are on their maximum of the rank and file, whereas officers in other services attain the same salary in approximately half that time. Moreover, whereas Post and Telegraph officers remain, indefinitely on . the rank and file maximum, owing, to a dearth ot executive positions to which appointments are necessary before receiving higher salaries, officers in other services. average abrrat three years only on the rank and file maxima because of the inverse proportion of higher positions to rank and file officers. Without traversing the unfavour-

flee to show that, since Post and Telegraph officers were restricted to promotions within their own service in 1918, there has been an increasing congestion of officers on the maxima of the rank and file, which, to quote the instance of the clerical division alone, has reached the total of 1972 officers in the last published list. Inclusive of administrative, professional, and executive positions of all classes, there were only 71G opportunities of promotion for these officers; and whereas the average number of promotions is 25 annually, while the annual accretion exceeds 100, it can be readily seen that a very large proportion of officers are indefinitely held up. “The Prime Minister’s statement on the question of improved Public Service salaries may be condensed into two short paragraphs, one by the heads of Departments, which reads-as follows: ‘To restore the salary cuts in the several services at the present time, after making allowances for the Improvements which have been granted, would cost at least £1,000,000 per annum,’ and the Prime Minister’s own words: ‘Tho present is ndt an opportune time for considering any claims of this nature, involving as they do an additional expenditure of more than one million pounds per annum.’ “From the foregoing it will be apparent that the Prime Minister has seized upon the maximum requests of tho various services as an excuse for denying any salary improvement at all, without even conceding the respective organisations the opportunity of negotiating upon their genuine grievances. Without retracting in any degree the just claims put forward for general increases in Post and Telegraph salaries, the association claims that definite improvement should have been afforded to the most necessitous and deserving of the officers concerned, and, in addition, that an assurance should have been given of serious consideration next year of the whole question. ’ „ . "An additional expenditure of £1,009,000, even though justly warranted, is no doubt a bogey to members of the political party now in power, but It is to be deplored that their sense of equity did not ensure something less than a flat turning down of any alleviation to the thousands Of workers in the Public Service whose remuneration in numbers of instances provides them with a bare subsistence. “The sum ot £OB,OOO would hare restored those officers at the head of the rank and file classes of the Post and Telegraph Department to the figure holding before the infliction .of the ’cuts’ in 1921-22, and would thus have provided a higher maximum, in the future, for the thousands of officers in progress to the top of their class. Assuming that the Post and Telegraph Department comprises one quarter of the Public Service, we arrive at the conclusion that a sum in round figures of £270.000, or one-fourth of that quoted by the Prime Minister, would have removed a great deal of the present discontent in all services, leaving, fjill consideration of the various demands, as previously stated, until next year. Some Comparisons. “In the paragraph numbered (1) by the. Special Committee, it was statod that the present maximum salaries of lower-graded officers generally compare favourably with those ruling in outside employment. The association contends that after an average of thirteen years’ service a salary of £240 per, annum, which is that, paid to over 1000 such officers as postmen, exchange clerks, linemen, etc., is so little in excess of that received by unskilled labourers as to be wholly unworthy of perpetuation. When it is taken into consideration that an eight or nlne-year training period, in lieu of the accepted five-year apprenticeship in outside circles, is in operation. and that officers may’remain on £240 indefinitely without further advancement, it cannot be held that the salary quoted compares at all favourably with that paid to skilled workers in outside occupation. It is difficult to secure a suitable basis for comparison with outside workers in respect of telegraphists, mail room clerks, etc., but the associated banks pay their tellers more than £lOO per annual in excess of the salary received by money-order and savings batik tellers. Telegraphists and clerks in Australia, performing similar duties, receive £348 and £312 respectively, instead of the £295 received by their brother postal workers in New Zealand. The statement that the maxima of £240 and £295 fixed for the rank and file general and .clerical divisions, respectively provides an adequate remuneration, cannot be supnorted. In 1020 the late Mr. Massey increased tlie maximum salaries then paid to £258 and £320 per annum. Thee amounts wore reduced in 1921-22 to the first-quoted figures. The cost of living to-day is ns high as it was in 1020, but, despite the fact that the Postmaster-General's report shows that the unit output of Work is greater than ever before, the Government .statement actually contends that the reduced salaries are commensurate with the value of tho services rendered. "The statements contained in paragraphs (2) and (3) by the Special Committee are not denied, but it can be definitely asserted that the great bulk ot the rank and file of the service have not .benefited, and cannot benefit, without an alteration to the present salary schedules, which is the sum and substance of tho claims of the Post and Telegraph employees. “Concerning paragraph (4): The general regrading of the various services has, in the case of the Post and Telegraph Department, advanced 141 officers from the £295 mark, with the promise of a further 200 officers in the near future, leaving 1725 officers still on the inadequate maximum of £295 per annum, and as is also the case of postmen, etc., many of these 1725 officers will remain, indefinitely without advancement. "In respect of paragraph (5), the right of appeal to an independent board of appeal is non-existent for the raising of tlie maxima of the rank and filo classes, and in effect can be exercised only in respect of non-prqmotion. “With regard to paragraph (G), the statutory quinquennial reclassification of the department undertaken this year, while revaluing higher positions, fails to take into account the value of tho services performed by the rank and file classes, or in any way deal with the low economic standard imposed by the existing salary schedules., “Clmderelia” of the Public Service. “The statement contained in paragraph (7) that ‘Restoration of the salary cuts or the general increasing of all salary scales would have a far-reaching effect and would tend to create a false standard of values tljpt is bound to have a reactionary effect,’ cannot be sustained. On the contrary, it is manifest that a maximum salary of £240 per annum, to a married man with responsibilities, inflicts upon him a standard of living: far below that which is aimed at by every right-thinking individual, and further, that a scale of salaries directly commensurate with'the value of the'work performed, cannot logically, create a false standard of values. At present thousands of officers are struggling to obtain the bare necessities of life, and any uptoward expenditure or sickness places them'in the direst straits. It cannot be contended that the increases sought, the justification of which is admitted by most Individual members of all political parties, would place any officer in a specially favoured position. The Post and Telegraph employees by reason of different hours ot duty, conditions of service, unfavourable comparison with other departments as regards promotion, retiring salary, etc., are seeking separate treatment. Tho heavy banking up of officers at the maxima of the rank and filo classes in their department, together with the other points of dissimilarity mentioned, demands some compensation, and the fact alone that other Public Service organisations are pressing for salary improvements, more than justifies the claims of the Post and Telegraph Service, which is everywhere recognised as the of tho Public Service. With reference to the admission ‘That there may be certain cases ot hardship, but these can be individually considered in connection with regrading, etc.’ tlie association definitely discounts the efficacy of the suggested way of removing hardship, which undoubtedly exists to a wide extent in the Post and Telegraph service owing to the low rates of pay obtaining in the rank and file classes, that cannot be dealt with under regrading. Regrading, as the name implies, is confined to designated positions above the rank and file, and power to regrade is vested In the permanent head; but the alteration of the schedules to provide for a better economic standard for the rank and file is wholly dependent upon legislative enactment. The question of the relief of hardship—of which much has been heard recently in connection with taxation proposals—is a very sore one with the officers of the Tost and Telegraph Department, as the ‘hardship’ clause in the Public Service Expenditure Adjustment Act of 1021, was so framed that not one officer of the service was able to obtain any relife, nd matter how genuine his claim. “The Government’s statement goes on to deal with the financial position of the Dominion and the amount of unemployment that exists as reasons why the present time is not opportune for considerhrg any claims for improved salary schedules In the Government Service. The association s reply Is that the Post and Telegraph Department is able to show a net profit after providing Cor interest and depredation charges, in addition to performing many services at considerably less than cost. Further, that when rates and charges were last substantially reduced to the public, the financial position of the Department was not as buoyant as to-day, and the concessions given were largely at the expense of the lower-paid officers. "Traversing the Special Committee s report, the Government’s statement goes on to say that ‘The question is not so much a matter of Restoring something that the present employees of the service have lost, ns an adjustment ot grades of salary.’ The association contends that this is the crux of the whole question. Ap upjvafd adjust-.

ment of salaries is the only fair and equitable way to restore generally the economic standard that obtained fifteen years ago. It now takes 325. to purchase the equivalent of a pound sterling in 1914. Distinction for Post and Telegraph Department. “The association lias noted with surprise that part of the Government’s statement which,, deals - with the distinction ,■ that should be-drawn in respect of the Post and Telegraph' Department where there is a greater number ot officers on the lower Scales. With preliminary comment only to say that the position spoken of by Sir Joseph Ward in 1918 is to-day accentuated iu every way, the following extract from ‘Hansard,* Vol. 183, pages 738-9, December 4, 1918, is quoted:—'There is a proposal that no officer is to ,be transferred to any other Department except with the concurrence in writing of the Secretary of tlie Post and Telegraph Department and of the permanent’head of that other. Department. I want to point out tlie need for this. At present ; the position is that many of the more Important officers in the Post and Telegraph Department have been withdrawn to other departments, and tlie Post and Telegraph Department is getting into the posltoin of being—as far as its highly trained officers arc concerned—a depleted service . ... the greatest ineonvenleucc lias been experienced, particularly during the last two or three years on account of transfers that have taken place, and it is necessary in the interests of the. department that thero should be no transfers except with the concurrence of the head ot the department and ot the other department concerned. With this law on the Statute Book It will not be possible for anyone in another department to go to a postal employee and hold out inducements to him to leave the Postal Department. . . . .this service is so big and so important that it requires to train up its own staff, and we require to have the calancs fixed to enable men In the service to know that when they are doing their task fairly and well there is an incentive to them to keep on and not to weaken the service by leaving. "This extract is but one of many statements in the volume of ‘Hansard referred to which could be effectively argued to meet the present general position in the Post and Telegraph Department, and a lbo to effectively answer that part of the Government’s statement that dca!s with ‘transfer to other Government departments. superannuation Fund.

“With regard to the Government’s reference to the superannuation fund, the association can also point to the abovementioned volume of ‘Hansard to show that in 1918 Sir Joseph Ward recorded that ‘at present there is an amount of £l6l 000 due to the superannuation lund And periodically the amount increases. "The considerable payment to the fund that will be necessary to place it on a sound financial footing is wholly due to the Government’s failure to U® a !*’ nual obligations to the fund, according to tlie estimate of the Government Actuary from time to time. It is wrong, however, to infer that the fund is Insolvent, seeing that the contributions and interest on investments meet the outgo; even though the Actuarv’s anticipated" ultimate liability on thTfund 8 could "not be met on the, presen of t3 the na urgency for overhauling ?h P e n °eewa°y the i-revious short and non-payments bv the Government, but the association strongly asserts that the needs in this direction constitute no excuse for the Government evading the pressing and urgent question of paying fair economic remuneration for the services of its