Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1930. STATE EMPLOYEES

Greymouth Evening Star, 2 October 1930, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1930. STATE EMPLOYEES

IT is difficult 1o understand the * display of indignation given by Labour and some Reform Members of Parliament, over the Government’s decision not to reinstate the Auckland telegraphists dismissed for breach of trust. It may be a coincidence, but it will be noted that most of the protests came from 'Members representing city constituencies where the public service vote is strong. This factor, and the eagerness of the Opposition to condemn the Ministry, were perhaps responsible for the verbal fireworks, which will be forgotten soon after the explosion. There may be some special circumstances attached to the Auckland cases, but the public will support the general principle that serious misconduct by State employees should receive a similar penalty as would he imposed on workers in private concerns, if they failed to carry out their part of the contract. it cannot be claimed that 1 lie Auckland P. and T. employees acted in ignorance. They knew they took a risk, and although the price of discovery was more than they expected, they have no real grievance. Nor should the nature of the communications they revealed have undue influence on the penalty for their faithlessness. The real point is that it is essential that State employees should carry out the terms of their engagement. The

preservation of secrecy regarding other people’s business placed in their hands, is a fundamental requirement. Unless such confidence is respected, the whole nation would suffer. It is always regrettable when capable officers in the State Department are dismissed, but in the Auckland cases, they have but themselves to blame, and their lale should be effective deterrent to others offered similar temptations.

Another point regarding Slate employees was raised in the House yesterday, by a Labour .Member, who complained th.it some Departments would not permit their employees Io undertake private work in their own time, whereas other Departments were less arbitrary. It was announced that the Government’s policy was to forbid such outside engagements to all State employees. A good argument could be put up for both sides of this, controversy, so much depending on the nature of the private work undertaken by a State employee. It may be going too far to forbid

altogether, this mixture of State and private employment, bill as a general principle, the Government’s decision is to be supported. In these days of restricted opportunities for employment, it is but fair io adhere, as far ns practicable, io the one-man one-job ideal, and ioo long a day of labour cannot be good for any man, nor in his employers’ interests. Hardship may arise if the Government is adamant, and some way open to meet exceptional circumstances is advisable.