INDIGNANT!

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 5, 6 July 1922, Page 8

INDIGNANT!

PUBLIC SERVICE SALARY CUT

STATEMENT BY GENERAL SECRE-

TARY. »

In a. statement made to-day, regarding Hhb decision of the Government concerning tho cut in Civil Service salaries, Mr. F. W. Millar, general secretary of the New Zealand Public Service Association, said:—

"Either the Prime Minister is ignorant o£ the facts, which is open to doubt, because full particulars of the position have been placed before him repeatedly, or ho is guilty o£ perversion. , The assot ciation does not admit that the iiicreases granted in 1920 were based on the three food gronps alone, but maintains that, when the matter was discussed with the Uniformity Committee (Messrs. W. R. Morris, F. V. Frazer, R. W. M'Villy, and the Acting-Secretary to the Post Office), all groups were considered. No man lives by food alone, and why the Prime Minister should deviate from the course followed by the Arbitration Court of including all groups can only be explained by assuming that the .cost-' of-living figures for the three food groups "give him some kind of an excuse for making the cut announced. There is an inference in, the two speeches lie has made this week .that the Public Service is riot, sticking to its side of the agreement. Our reply is that, even if the Prime. Minister takes the three food group figures only, the reduction would be a deliberate breach of the understanding, the terms of which we have put before him on many occasions, and which herhas never refuted. When the first cut was made we sensed .trouble and possible misunderstanding at a later stage, and on^he 2nd February we wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:—

" 'We ask that it should be established beyond doubt that the "terms of pur understanding were as follow :— " ' ' ""'l. That there was to be no salary /bonus deductions, unless the cost of living had fallen 10 points. (Note: — The present cut to the extent of £15 was due when the cost of .living fell to 52 per cent, above pre-war level, further cuts should then take place only in the event of the cost of living falling to 42 per cent, and 32' per cent, re^ j spectively). . , '•'

" '2. That the reduction in the cost of living should be the sole determin- . ing factor, and that any salary-bonus reductions should be proportionate only Ito the drop in the living cost^' ; " - 3. The amount of the deductions to be £15 for officers receiving salaries over £165 per annum, and £6 for officers receiving under that amount,: for each 10 points cost-of-living drop.' " • " The Prime Minister," continued Mr. Miller, " has \ evaded replying or publishing whether or not the Uniformity Committee confirms our statements. Ho can only terminate an interminable controversy by publishing a statement from the Uniformity Committee. ■ "Even if the point had been reached at which another out was justified, on the Prime Minister's ■ own basis, £26 ■Is is the .total reduction that should be made for officers who have received £95 cost-of-living salary' increase, which roughly amounts .to 26 per cent, of their cost-of-living . increase. Many officers did . not receive the £95 cost-of-living increase, and the reduction result in these cases is exemplified in the following- table: — " '■■'„ '"Officers under £190. a year received average cost-of -living increase of '£10. Lc«s in first and second cuts, £15. Dedxiction percentage, 38 per cent. ;■ "Officers a-eceiving £350 to £500 a year —Average cost-of-living increase, £75. Loss in first and second cuts, £30 a year. Deduction percentage, 40 per cent. "Officere receiving £500 to £800 a year received average cost-of-living increase of £75. Loss in ' first and second cuts, £40 a year. Deduction percentage,' 53 par cent. . ' ... .

'■' "If the Government had taken up an attitude that it was impossible for it to meet the, salary bill," concluded Mr. Miller, "then its attitude might have met with some respect, but to juggle with the cost-of-living figures, and to attempt to twist, them into a justification of the announced reduction cannot breed anytliing but disgust in the minds of any person, Public.servant or otherwise, who has knowledge of the underlying facts."