PUBLIC SEEVICE PAY

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 102, 26 October 1929, Page 8

PUBLIC SEEVICE PAY

(To the Editor.)

. Sir,—l desire to take this opportunity jof replying to some inconsistencies which appeared in your leading article of Tuesday last, dealing with, the question of Public Service pay. You preface your remarks in the article in question by stating that there was a •'stonewall"' in the House in resistance of taxation proposed by the Government, and that opponents of that increase have demanded as au al ternative greater economy in administration. You then add that, bearing this in mind, it must be admitted that this is not an opportune time to consider an addition to the public expenditure. It is therefore clear from the foregoing that what is referred to as "economy in administration" has reference to Public-Ser-vice salaries. The argument you adduce in your article obviously affirms the principle that when the Government is at anytime financially embarrassed, instead cf meeting the situation by the application ol an equitable system of taxation, the matter should be adjusted per medium of the salaries paid to the servants of the _tate. Ihis is in open conflict with the opinion you expressed in the same article namely, that -the value of the services rendered must govern the emolument." Ibis principle is one against which no exception can be taken, and is the basis ot the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Employees' Association's ■ claims for an increase in salaries in the Department. Your article deals with the restoration of the salary cuts, a matter which you will appreciate is altogether different to a claim tor salary adjustment on the grounds of value oi service rendered. You also refer to the fact that the Committee which made recommendations to the Government re the salary position in the Public Service claimed that "the present maximum salaries for the lower grades of the services are largely in accord with the rates of remuneration generally paid m outside employment (as far as they can be reasonably compared)." Your comment on this phase of the question is that "until evidence in disproof of this statement is.produced it must be accepted as a reason against a general increase." One can only conclude from the opinions you have expressed that if the members of the P. and T. Service can prove that the "salaries they receive'are .not commensurate with the service they render, and that. they are not in accord with the rates of remuneration received by other workers where the rates can reasonably be compared, then the Government should give the salary question as it effects P. and T. workers its serious and considerate attention." The Post and Telegraph Employees' Association, which represents the members of the Department, has already made.out a clear case to the Government that the salaries paid are hot commensurate with the value of service rendered, and can conclusively prove that the rates of remuneration which obtain in the Commonwealth P. and T. Service are considerably in excess of those operating the New Zealand Service. Some of the members of the Special Committee which made - the report to the Prime Minister must have been aware of these facts, and it is interesting to note that, whilst indirect reference is made to workers in outside .employ, no mention is made of employees in the Australian Service, where the economic conditions and money values are to • all intents and purposes ou a par with those obtaining in the Dominion. Had they have made a reference to Australia, this Committee would have had no option but to admit that the salaries paid in New Zealand as they affect P. and T. workers are generally inadequate, bearing in mind the nature and the value of work performed. It might be advisible at this juncture to mention that the salaries paid in the Postal Service in Australia are not regulated by politicians, but on an arbitration basis. ■'In conclusion, might I add that all that the Post and Telegraph employees require is that the justice of their claims should be decided on, not by a tribunal composed of the heads of the Department, functioning as the Uniformity Committee, but by Parliament itself, on the lines advocated in your article referred to. viz., "the value of service rendered." —I am, H. H. BROWN, Organiser, Post and Telegraph Employees' Association. [Our reference to the demand for economy in administration should require no explanation. It is in answer to the claim that has been made that this is an opportune time to. restore the' cuts. -That claim presupposes a complete return of prosperity. Admittedly emolument must be governed by the value of services, but our^ correspondent overlooks the fact that practical considerations must affect the choice of a time for adjustment. Australian comparisons are not strictly relevant, though they may be interesting. They cannot be accepted with safety- because it has yet to be proved that "economic conditions and money values are to all intents and purposes on a.par with those obtaining in the Dominion." A better measure is the scale of payment in New Zealand for work calling for equal skill and ability and carried on under equal conditions. The application of such a measure is not a task for Parliament, as it involves exhaustive investigation and accurate analysis. Parliament is prone to disregard such considerations and .to pay overmuch attention to organised demands. The Uniformity Committee comprising heads of Departments is preferable as a competent non-political tribunal. —Ed.]