RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS

Evening Star, Issue 21013, 29 January 1932, Page 11

RETIREMENT OF TEACHERS

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l react in your Wednesday’s issue the suggestions put forward by an Aucklander regarding tho compulsory retirement of teachers on completion of forty years’ service. 1 am aware of the fact that, compared with at least one other section' of tho Government Service, particularly in so far as retirement is concerned, the teaching profession has been a favoured section for many years. It comes, however, as a surprise to me to learn that the Education Department is still employing members with over forty years’ service. It is no wonder, therefore, that employment cannot be found for the probationers. This state of affairs stands out in direct contrast to the treatment afforded this other section of the Government service. In the department I mention the age and service requirements for retirement are sixty years and forty years respectively - hut during the past yeai, m accordance with the provisions of tho Finance Act, 1931, members sixty years of age (irrespective of service) and those with thirty-five years service or over, and some with only thirty years’ service, have been compulsorily retired, and at a reduced pension, of course. During that period a very large number of officers have held and are still holding the advanced positions with no increases in pay, a difference in some cases of over £IOO per annum To their credit they are, however, doing so without complaint, fully recognising tho times through which we are passing. In my opinion tho proposals advanced by our Auckland friend do not go far enough, as T fail to ace why the provisions of the Finance Act, 1931, should not also apply to the teaching profession, and why' it should ho exempt in any respect from conditions imposed on other sections of the Government service. This surely is a matter for early investigation by the Economy Commission.—l am. etc., Sauce for the Goose. January 2S.