RATES OF PAY

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 93, 21 April 1939, Page 8

RATES OF PAY

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I am heartily in agreement with the view expressed by "Ex Labour" in your paper tonight. I would, however, review even a wider field. The second division man is in a very bad pilght, unsupported by the party he has always looked to for support and to uphold his interests. In fact, although they advocate higher wages and make outside employers pay these, this is not followed by the Government. Even typistes, etc., are in the same case. The first division men, too, in fhe railways, especially those belonging to one of the professions, are very badly off. It seems a very wrong state of affairs if men with comparatively little education, and no outlay required to learn their work, should receive more than many of the professional men (and also the skilled tradesmen) in the employment of the Government. Take for instance the case (although it be hackneyed) of the waterside workers. Just lately through your columns we have had statements showing how much some of these men have earned. It is amazing; it is far more than men in professional employment earn—men who have put aside years of their lives in study and put aside pounds and pounds of their salaries in the payment of that study. They are entrusted with responsible work; work that if inefficiently done means the lives of the people (take, for example, the railway engineers), and,

what reward do they get? Merely the knowledge that men in much lower avenues of work are pandered to and reap far better wages.

Why, the Government themselves must condone this. Just think of the big salaries they give to some posts which though important are not vital to the lives of the people (broadcasting), and then ask yourselves what does, say. the public works engineer get, what does the locomotive engineer get, the signal or electrical engineer, etc.? Is this fair? I, for one, do not think so. When this Government came into power, I looked to them to give some recognition to the initiative, the enterprise, and the brains of some of the professional workers (yes, workers), but, alas, I am sadly disappointed.—l am, etc., ANOTHER EX LABOUR. April 19.

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —Your correspondent "Ex Labour" complains about his wages and the cost of living having gone up to such an extent that he is worse off than in the depression years. The correspondent sounds as if he knew little of the suffering that happened to 69,000 men, and he was very lucky to remain in his job and enjoy the advantages of very low prices then, compared with those men out of work with no money at all for new clothing or household requirements. The writer, a first-class tradesman, lost his job during the depression years and had to go like so many more, on pick and shovel work at 27s 6d per week, with a house rent of 21s to pay before anything was counted for myself, wife, and schoolboy. Thanks •to the Labour Government I was put back to my trade which I had followed for 40 years. My wages are now £5 5s per week, so I am quite happy to pay the increased charges. If your correspondent had been on relief for three years at the wages mentioned he would change his tune and be thankful for a Government that can so change the lot of a willing worker. —I am, etc., AKTISAN.