CORRESPONDENCE. HOSPITAL NURSES.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 23, 28 January 1908, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE. HOSPITAL NURSES.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —ln a sub-leader headed "Not so good as it looked" you have quoted only certain portions of the new scale of salaries to be paid to the staff at th« Wellington Hospital. You state "tho scale which is to be changed provided £18 a year for probationers and £26 when they won their way from a Kue to a pink unifoim." This is incorrect, £25 being the rate paid, not £26. I piopose, jf you will be good enough to publish it, to give the rates under the old scale fiist and then the new : — OLD SCALE. 5 sister* at £50 „ „ „ MO 4 sietoi-3 at £C 0 200 5 senior nurses at £35 175 32 junior first and second year, at £25 800 52 probationers at £13 103 ....„_, 432 Total - .- £IQO7 KSW SCALE. £ 5 elslera at £70 - « 150 M sistera at £60 „ - 210 S eonior nursrs at £40 „ „ 200 1 (after cix montlia £50) 16 juniora, fireA year, at £20 „ _, „ 320 16 junions, aecond year, it £30 _ « — 480 32 protwfciohera, at £12 ..._„...._ 384 V Total £1974 *Aa the four sietera at £60 are near completing thwr flra*. yenr, they will be entitled to tha high«r R*l*ry fiortly. When a girl desires to enter the hospital as one of the staff she is required to sign an agreement for three years ior which, under the old scale, 6he would have received £63 10s. Under the- new scale she will receive £62. Tho new scale of wages was adopted to induce our E«nior nurses to stay after finishing their course and with the idea of making the [ rise in wages more equal and proportion1 able. Our. new scale of wages for all classes compares very favourably with the other hospitals in (hit Dominion as does also our rate of 3 s#piatfts to one nurse. The medical mpcrintendent stated in liis report on &c new scale, "our probatiners and jun;r nurses are, in my opinion, well paid for their services," and in answer to a question at the meeting, "we have no difficulty in obtaining probationers." Sir- Harry Burdett, (he author of the { Hospital Annual, and probably the greatI est living authority on hospital manageI ment states: —"Any gain which may be I derived from unskilled iabour is swallowed up by the additional skilled labour required to supervise and instruct th© juniors in the btaff." Again, ha says: — "It will be seen that such services aa they (probationers) are able to render in tho course of instruction during their j first year axe very far indeed from an equivalent for what they receive." Now j sir, from the vages paid under the new I sca!e you will see that for the first six , months an extra sum of £67 will have to jbe paid, increasing ith the service. The scale comes into force from Ist January, 1908, bat does not affect any junior in' the institution, and is only to be applied to newcomers and those nurees who have served their three years. You state, sir, that I "uDgallantly declaied that probationers did not earn their s<ilt." I can assure you I have no 1 recollection of having mads that state- ; ment, and muet deny using such words. You, however, go on t6 state "the allegation shows that he knows little about 1 the internal economy of the hospital. If , he had made a little enquiry he would have discovered that the trustees get their chaning, sweeping, ele_ning, scrubbing, etc." -Now sir, no probationer or junior nurse is called upon to do this work. Twentyone servants, not inclusive of those in tha laundry, are employed at the hospital. Every ward has it own maid to ; do rough work such as floors, walls, i scrubbing, blackleading, washing-up, I etc., —the work that probationers are ■ callad upon to do is simply sweeping and dusting. The chief medical officer at the hospital has gone into the question of salaritA very thoroughly and after going carefully through his reporb, together 1 with the salaries paid in the other centres, I was prepared to move the adoption and to speak to that report. Will you be good enough to give my statement the same prominence that you ga-ve your Qrifcicism. Thanking you in anticipation. —l jun, etc v A. C. PEABCE. Wellington, 25th January, 1908.