NURSES’ SALARIES

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 152, 24 March 1937, Page 7

NURSES’ SALARIES

Hospital Board Grants Increase “SHOULD BE MUCH HIGHER” Whether the staff nurses and sisters of Wellington Hospital should be paid considerably more than they are receiving was a question warmly debated at the ordinary meeting of the Wellington Hospital Board last night. A scale of increased remuneration was recommended by the salaries subcommittee, and adopted, the new rates to be: First year nurses, £37 10/- per annum; second year, £47/10/-; third year, £57/10/-; fourth year, £75; staff nurses, first year, £95; second year, £110; ward sisters, commencing at £l2O. Mr. A. H. Carman, moving that the salary scale be referred back for further consideration and that a comprehensive salary schedule be formulated with a view to making substantial increases for nurses and sisters, accused the committee of giving large increases to the hospital officers and small ones —about £7/10/- a year—-to the nursing staff, who were the mainstay of the hospital. Down through the years the nurses had been required to live on a pittance. Their work was the most poorly paid of all work performed by women. Mrs. S. E. Blake seconded the motion. The chairman, Mr. J. Glover, said he favoured larger salaries for the nurses, but this must be done gradually. First, second and third year nurses would receive increases of £7/10/- a year; fourth year, £5; staff nurses, first year, £25; second year, £2O; ward sisters, commencing rate raised by £lO. The nurses were in a better position than they were three or four years ago. They now worked a 48-hour week instead of 56 hours, and were receiving a holiday a week in place of a half-day a fortnight.

A member: It was shameful! Mr. Glover: Of course it was. Mr. R .Holland said that as a result of a new award one member of the staff had received a rise of over £lOO a year, or 100 per cent. If the board made large increases for one person it should do it for all. If it intended to pay its nurses low wages simply because there were plenty of applicants it would be reverting to the days of slave-drivers. The chairman: Talk sense. Mr. Holland: I am not asking for insults, but for consideration. The proposed scale, he continued, was unreasonably low.

Mrs. A. McVicar, who claimed to take second place to no one in her desire to help the nurses, said the committee had treated them very fairly, and she felt sure the nurses would say so, too. They were receiving their training, had free board and were well cared for. They could live nicely on their salaries. Mr. Holland: At ten bob a week? Mrs. McVicar: It’s more than ten bob a week.

Mr. j. Purvis: When a nurse buys a pair of stockings she has nothing left. A girl of 19 taking up nursing should receive at least £1 a week. Mr. F. Castle pointed out that when a nurse’s salary was mentioned many people forgot that tuition was provided free in addition to board and other benefits. On the other hand a girl who had the expense of going to the university before taking up, say, teaching, was faced with heavy expense and at the end of her education received £SO a year. The nurse's hoard was worth 25/- a week to her.

Dr. D. M. Wilson supported the principle of a gradual increase.in wages for the nurses. It. should be remembered, he said, that a probationer was not of much use to a hospital and she had little real responsibility, Mr. A. W. Croskery said he would not like it to go out that any member who voted against the amendment did not desire to raise the nurses’ salaries. The board had endeavoured to better their conditions. If the 40-hour week were proposed that night he did not think there would be a dissentient, but there was not the accommodation to allow it. He was as good a Socialist as Mr. Carman, but they had to remember that until the present economic sysi°m was altered they had to do the best they could. The amendment was defeated by 11 votes to four.