TEACHERS’ SALARIES

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 January 1934, Page 7

TEACHERS’ SALARIES

OVER PAYMENTS DISCOVERED SYDNEY, December 21. At the annual conference of. the Teachers’ Federation this week a question cropped up which deserves notice, chiefly because of the way in which it was bandied by the teachers prcsenl. One of the delegates drew the attention of the conference to the fact that the officials of the Education Department sometimes make mistakes in the payment of salaries, and when teachers have been accidentally overpaid they are asked to refund the difference. For years, said the speaker, notices have been sent to persons on low salaries informing them that overpayments have been made and demanding repayment by instalments deducted from the fortnightly envelope. • Cases were cited of teachers who,

having been overpaid, were ordered by | the Department to surrender .1.0/- per fortnight, out of their small salaries till the account, is balanced, and one instance was given of a. woman who had been overpaid to the extent of £BO during five years, and now that the. mistake has been discovered she lias to make up lhe deficit at the rate of £1 per fortnight. One might have imagined that the lady, having had the henelit of £BO of public moimy for five years, would lie quite ready to repay it by degrees. But that w;’f. not. the view of the delegate, Mr. Connolly, from the Barrier, who introduced the matter, or of the teachers who supported him. Mr. Connolly moved a resolution to the effect that “when | a teacher's salary has been overpaid, the Department should bear the loss,” and tin's resolution was actually carried by a large majority—l 26 votes to 36. STRONG OBJECTION It is some consolation to record the fact that there was strong opposition put up in certain quarters. Mr. Godfrey pointed out that there are two sides to the question—the Department sometimes accidentally underpays teachers —and if' this happened and the mistake were subsequently admitted. the passing of such a resolution as this would mean that the teacher would have no redress. When the resolution hud been carried. the president, Dr. Curry. dissociated himself from it. and said that he would not be a party to .pressing it on the attention of the Department. “I will never,” he declared, “while I | am president of this federation, say that a. man who gets money to which he has no right should keep it”; and he was vigorously supported by a former president. Mr. McGuinness, and a few other delegates. But the great majority either could not realise that an important moral principle was -involved iu the question, or felt that the “serious personal hardship” entailed by the repayment of the money should outweigh such trivial scruples of conscience. .After the president had spoken. cries of dissent were raised. "This will ruin lhe conference." said one delegate, ami a woman heatedly dema.n.ded bywlial right the president presumed !.<• defy the decision ol the meeting. But. Dr. (Jnrry was quite equal to the occasion. "If (his con ference,” he said, “were to carry a resolution calling upon me to undress myself in the middle of George Street, should I bo obliged to do it?” and he adjourned the meeting for a. few min- | ut.es so as io give lhe. delegates a chance io calm down. But. the great majority of the delegates still seemed incapable of realising that they had taken a highly questionable step, which, if regarded as a sound prece-

dent, might mean the undermining of all commercial and financial and personal honesty.

So far, the most indignant protest against this outrageous resolution yet published must bo credited to Sir x\rIhur Cocke, who, in a letter to the “Sydney Morning Herald,” lias expressed what a great many people have certainly felt and thought about this mutter. “H is incredible,” he writes, “that these J”G guardians of the morals of our children fail to recognise the far-reaching consequences of their action. Parents and guardians may well be appalled at the ethics underlying such a course of conduct. Arc these teachers prepared to tell (heir

scholars that a tram fare unpaid is money saved or that on over-payment by’ a bank letter invests the recipient v'ith the moral r.feht to retain his money’”*' It is some comfort to know that the public conscience has been really shocked by the homage thus rendered by our teachers to “the great god expediency.” One may hope that the teachers will follow the good advice that Sir Arthur Cocks has given them, by rescinding this shameless resolution and expunging it from their records. But I doubt if thby will.