CITY GAS ENGINEER,

Evening Star, Issue 16778, 5 July 1918, Page 5

CITY GAS ENGINEER,

ro TUB EDITOR. Sir, —In the City Council's report- of last week’s meeting I noticed that the gas engineer had been called up for active service, and that he proceeds to camp in September ; also that another engineer had bean appointed (teinporAuly) during Lis aaseaev, at Uie salary oi -CdOO per year. ' From a ratepayer’s point of view, I think ■ it is about time that the Efficiency Board stepped in and decided what was efficient. Vvo ratepayers are called upon to pay the fol'owing per year:—Acting engineer, £3OO per annum : allowance to present engineer, £136; privates’ pay (6s per day), £lO9 10s; allowance to wife, £54 15s per annum ; allowance for one child (la 6d day), £27 7s 6d per annum; cost of private keep, clothing, transport, say, £62 per annum; total, £1,200 12s Cd. _ I am allowing a fair limit in this amount so that the ratepayers aie called upon to pay about £1,250 jaw annum for an engineer tor their emo. Tun amount is not all, as a big percentage of the men nt present engaged on the gasworks arc being called up in the bailors, and passed lit. This leaves one cf oar trading concerns in a sorry plight. In the event of a big lercakdown, writ 11; ■> engineer and a stiff who understand the ins and outs of the construction of the work away, it would be a very serious position for the public and relupivers—’as. with a strange -n rineer and a new staff, it would be perhaps a considerable time before repairs «Hd be effected. It is about time that the Efficiency Board stepped in and protected the public's interest by appealing for the present engineer. .Surely a man whoso services are devoted to tin? looking after thousands of /•on»urisers of gas is worth appealing for agiinsi waterside workers, dairy farmers, engineers in genera], and men in the various unessential industries. I. as a ratepayer, protest against the amount of £1,200 to £1,5C0 per year being paid to an engineer (that is what the total means when one nan’s service would not be available), when the present engineer could bo retained at £690 per annum.

I expect to see n. notice issued that, owing, to the increase'! cost of production, flie price of gas will have to no rai'ed (notice, the cost of production). It is just about time that the present council woke np. If they can afford to keen a man to look after the beauty spots (which is not resent,inil), it behoves them to look after the er.ldiers’ and -ratepayers' interest by appealing for the present gas engineer. The Government gazetted-tho gasworks as essential cl tiring the Wellington strike. Is it not so r.on? Trusting the National Fill-c-leney Board will take this matter up—l am, etc., Ratepayer. July Sr.