CIVIL SERVANTS' SALARIES

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 53, 4 March 1922, Page 6

CIVIL SERVANTS' SALARIES

10 Hi IMTOR. I Sir, —It ib not our intention to indulge in mere verbal sparring with Mr. Combs 'aB our aim is solely to elucidate the facts and not take part in a contest of wits. When your correspondent uses a string of figures, procured from a Minister of the Crown or anywhere else, in order apparently to convey the impression that men and women in the Public Service receive on an average £183 per annum, to be reduced by £40, leaving the average at £143, or 9s per day, he is certainly presenting what is misleading. An honest statement of the facts would disclose that in computing this average, the salaries of thousands of juniors and others not able to earn a full wage, are included in.the total number from which he makes his calculation. He refers us to page 71 of this year's Estimates, where, he aays, " the average pay of the rank and file postman, lineman, etc. (general division), 12s per' day, "and that the average for the rank and file, telographistg, clerks, etc (clerical division), is 16s 6d per day," Note the " etc." in each instance. 11 reference to the page quoted we fin<rthat in order to show a low average he has included the salaries of juniors, of whom there are 687 at £72, nine at £85, 423 at j £98, 160 at £111—that is, over 1200 in the general division alone. It is an old trick over again of including boys and girls' wages in order to present a low average. We have no hesitation in saying that such sophistical use of figures is quite contemptible, as without explanation-it is a practical deception, of the public. After presenting a specious and misleading case, Mr. Comb* arrogantly contends that unless the. league can show that the salaries of the Post and Telegraph officers are excessive (what we have never affirmed), "it should keep off." .That is mere nonsense, as the league has as much right to discuss the matter as Mr. Combs or any other citizen has. If the Depart-] ment is not paying for overtime worked in a proper manner,-then the officers have a just ground for complaint on that head; at tr/e same time we cannot ac-: cept Mr. Combs's statement of details right off.in view of the imperfections of his other statements. Mr. Combs's argument that the public is not overcharged by an increase of .100 per cent, in rates will interest readers.- He' might have added whether he was in favour, of another " cut " on the public or not. It must be noted that Mr. Combs has not disputed our statement that, " taking all over twenty-one years of age, the average salary (in the P. and T. Department) is £280." ' ■• Your correspondent cannot deny that the expenditure of the Department exceeds the income. Can he tell us any way in which that could be met other than by increasing the income (another cut on the public) or reducing expenditure (which .involves salary reductions or dismissals)? We pointed out that, as the public bore the first " cut," should it have been required to meet another? It is sheer nonsense of Mr. Combs to write as if increase of postage and tele- v graph rates only affect^ business firms. All the wage-earners of the country had to pay their quota of the increased rates not only directly but indirectly, through increased prices, and surely they are entitled to be considered. Thinking members of the Public Service know that the adjusting of finances is not the simple problem that Mr. Combs would* like to make it appear.—We are, etc., ■■■■-■■ NEW ZEALAND WELFARE ■ LEAGUE. 3rd March. •