SUPERANNUATION FUNDS

Evening Star, Issue 21232, 13 October 1932, Page 15

SUPERANNUATION FUNDS

POSITION OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES 11 BREAKING CONTRACTS " Messrs E. J. Dash (president), M. J. Connelly (vice-president), and J. Elliott (executive councillor), of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, who are also members of the Railway Superannuation Board, made the following statement in Wellington on Tuesday regarding the superannuation of railway employees:— “ We regret that when the question of improving the stability of the Railway Superannuation Fund was being considered by the Economy Commission an opportunity was not afforded representatives of Division If. of the railway service to tender evidence, as had tliis been done we believe that the findings of the commission would have been more acceptable to the great bulk of the contributors and superannuitants. We join with the commission in its desire to bring about stability in the various superannuation funds; but we cannot agree to the recommendations involving the breaking of the contracts with members. “ These contracts were honourably entered into years ago, members of the service being compelled to pay into those funds, notwithstanding that in many instances contributors with young families could ill afford to do so. It was, however, pointed out at 'the time that the Government also had a liability in that it would guarantee the funds. This part of the contract has not been complied with ; and it is due to this and other factors which are mentioned herein that the Railway Fund has reached its present position. RIGHT TO REVIEW. “If it is proposed now by the stronger party to alter the terms ot the original arrangement, then wo say that provision, in the way of an option, should be incorporated in any proposed legislation, so as to copter upon existing contributors the right to review their position in the light of the new legislation. “In recommending the extension of the ago limit to sixty-five years the commission has undoubtedly overlooked the fact that there are two distinct classes of employees in the service—namely, those carrying on clerical duties and those engaged in manual work. It should bo plain to all that what might bo considered a reasonable length of service for the clerical staff cannot bo regarded in the same light where the other division is concerned. The ability of members of Division If. even to continue until they have reached sixty-five years of age, owing to the exacting nature of the work,/ both physically and mentally, is open to question; and the possibilities of their enjoying well-deserved retirement if the commission’s recommendations arc adopted is somewhat remote. This is a serious matter, and it is questionable what retiring benefits, it any, will accrue to the manual workers under such conditions. ‘NO FURTHER INROADS.’ “ The recommendation of, and the reasons advanced for the abolition of the cost-of-living bonus for superannuitants in receipt of £IOO per annum and under are not readily understood, seing that the commission has recommended that those who arc in receipt ot over £IOO per annum must not bo reduced below that amount. Wo consider that as the Government has already recently reduced the annual maximum the former class will receive, with bonus, to £9O per annum, no further inroads should be made on these people’s pensions. That they might qualify for the old ago pension is not a reasonable argument, as there will bo some who will be ineligible by ago to receive any od ago pension whatever. “ Wo cannot help contrasting this recommendation to abolish the cost-of-living bonus with the desire of the commission to repeal section 103 (1) of the Act, which limits to £3OO per annum the allowances that are to bo paid to members who joined the service after 1908. The reason for this recommendation does not fairly state the position, as when this section of the Act commences'to operate, seventeen years hence, iho higher salary superannuitants will be placed on the fund. The amount involved then will bo much greater than the present figures. Those members joined the fund under these conditions; and to grant further concessions to this class, whilst withdrawing the rights of more deserving contributors, is neither equitable nor desirable, and will place an unnecessary liability on the funds—a liability that was never intended. “ In conclusion, we note that the commission recommended the breaking of contracts in regard to the 3 per cent, contributors. Whilst reiterating that contracts should not be broken, wo say

unhesitatingly that if they mnst be interfered with there is no reason why those iu receipt of large annuities should not be similarly treated and the maximum pension payable reduced to £.‘500 per annum. This would involve a considerable saving to the fund and make possible the retention of the more justifiable, benefits to the groat bulk of the contributors.”