The Hawera Star. THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1931. THE CIVIL SERVICE 10% CUT.

Hawera Star, Volume L, 5 March 1931, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1931. THE CIVIL SERVICE 10% CUT.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in Hawera, Manaia Kaupokonui, Otakebo, Oeo, Pihama, Opunake, Normanby, Okaiawa, Eltham, Ngaere, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Awatuna, Te Kiri, Mahoe, Lowgarth, Manutahi, Kakaramea, Alton, Hurleyville, Patea, Whenuakura, Waverley, Mokoia, Wbakamara, Ohangai, Meremere, Fraser Road, and Ararata.

There has been a good deal of interest evinced, locally and throughout the Dominion in the Government’s decision to impose a tcn< per cent, cut in Civil Servants’ wages and salaries. From the Service there have been vigorous protests and from sections of the public there has been much applause of the [Government’s action. The correspondjence which has been appearing in the “Star” displays two widely divergent points of view—that of the pioneer farmer who, remembering his own early hardships and the standards of living obtaining in the days when this country was a sparsely settled colony, finds it difficult to readjust his viewpoint today, and that of the Civil Servant, himself.

It is distressingly easy to take a prejudiced view of this subject, and, in. order to be fair, one must look at some bed-rock facts. On the one hand wc have the urgent necessity fo,r reduction of the costs of production in this country; this issue cannot be avoided by men who make a sincere attempt to study our economic problems. Our products, both primary and secondary, are selling at prices in many instances which result in a loss and there can be only one result from that state of affairs. We do not propose at this juncture to examine the reasons, for that would only obscure the point at issue—that is, “Is a flat-rate 10 per cent, reduction of wages for the whole of the Civil Service equitable?” In our opinion it cannot be upheld on the grounds of equity, and we say that wellknowing that we have for a long time urged a reduction in production costs,! which are primarily wage costs'. The farmer points to conditions which cause him to work for long hours for a return, after meeting all liis commitments, which does not allow him to draw decent wages over and above his living costs. The employer of skilled labour can show that a fixed standard of remuneration, based not upon the worth of labour as revealed by the ultimate selling profit of the manufactured article, but upon the cost of living, is in many cases beating him; the skilled tradesman knows that when trade becomes slack he falls out of employment, and there is no superannuation for him. None of these interests is inclined to

ard of appearance for himself and his family, and pay his rent. A fleeting examination of the budget of any family living on £4 10s a week will reveal that there is a great difference in the measure of the sacrifice that that family is called upon to bear under a ten per cent, cut and the sacrifice required of a family with an income of £lO a week. In the former case the income is reduced by nine shillings; in the latter it is reduced by £l. Theoretically) that may appear fair enough, but when one comes a little closer to the facts of housekeeping, and of rearing a family in a town, one is startled to find that whereas the higher paid man can make shift and meet the loss of £1 a week by cutting his coat according to his cloth, the lower paid man is actually being deprived of a substantial piece of the cloth itself.

The case for reduction of wagecosts is' as good as ever it was; indeed, each passing month makes the need more urgent in some lines of industry. The Civil Service must expect to be called upon to bear its share of the sacrifice, but in the meantime the lower paid men at least have a good case when they urge that they should not be pushed into the forefront of this attack upon the economic depression. The Government has made a. gesture of economy which the country generally has welcomed, but it would have been more impressive if that gesture had been more carefully planned. The announcement that a 10 per cent, cut would be made throughout the whole of J the Civil Service, from Cabinet Ministers downwards, struck the right note, fso far as it went, but there are some thousands of housewives in the country who are convinced, and with very good reason, that they are being called upon to bear a greater share of the country’s economic burdens than the Cabinet Minister ’s themselves. This grievance could be adjusted by the introduction of a graduated scale of wage reduction with a view to casing the burden on the 1 lower-paid ranks of the Service.

sympathise with 'Civil Servants 1 when their wages are reduced' by 10 per cent.; "They are lucky to have jobs at all,” is the popular verdict, and the public is well satisfied to, let it go at that. But there is a good deal to be said on the Civil Servant’s side. It can be granted that the Civil Service is too big and too costly. But is that the fault of the 'Civil Servant? Is it the service we should attack, or should we not properly blame a succession of Governments which have allowed the Service to. grow to such unwarrantable proportions? If the politicians were prepared to admit their mistakes and plead guilty to adopting the line of least resistance there would be a different set of facts to. argue upon. But the politicians admit none of these things. The point at issue, therefore, is not whether we have too many Civil Servants, but whether it is just and reasonable to ask the lower paid men to sacrifice the same percentage of their wages' as the higher paid men are called upon to sacrifice. It was being said on every hand a few weeks ago that the Government should give a. lead to. the country on the wage reduction question'. In our opinion that lead should, have boon given in the first place bj 7 a. reduction of the unemployment relief rate. Private employers and employees should be willing to follow that lead and the Civil Service cannot expect to be allowed to escape unscathed from the economy axe. But it is surely not unreasonable to ask that the man on the £4 IDs a week level should not be required to sacrifice the same proportion of his wages as the man on the £lO level. The former, if he be a married man with a family of two or three children, is already perilously near that margin where it is difficult to maintain a reasonable standard of living. The fact that a man could, two generations ago, live on a wage of 5s a day, rear a family and save enough to get land 1 of his own, does not enter into consideration of this problem to-day. The Civil Servant cannot live out in the bush and be a Civil Servant; ho must live in town, maintain a certain stand-^