TELEGRAPH OPERATORS’ UNREST

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8363, 25 February 1913, Page 10

TELEGRAPH OPERATORS’ UNREST

To the Editor “N.Z. Times.” Sir, —Apropos the recent unrest among the telegraph operators —of coarse this revivification would appear somewhat unseasonable did not the as yet unmollified attitude of the department amply warrant it. Its closing epistle anent the outcome of the deputation to the secretary was of course an obvious diplomatic climb down. As a matter of fact the deputation was, in its way, highly successful; that is to say, the department promised to accede to most of .the representations and to institute an exhaustive inquiry into others. But the redress is only a potentiality, and there are as yet few signs of its materialisation. The department’s declaration that the recent migration of young operators was referable to the innate adventurous spirit of the colonial was very unctuous and very sycophantic. 1 happen to be in a better position than it to express an opinion on this subject, as I have worked among these “adventurous spirits” and know that they were desperately weary of martyrdom in this arena of red tape, indeed, it would not be hyperbolising to assert that the treatment some of them received left them no option but to go, and in this it would seem the department has not the public weal at heart, apparently . sacrificing good young men to sheer unadulterated obstinacy. Recently an operator applied for leave to which he had au inalienable. right, but, as ho was leaving the department, it seized,' with avidity, the opportunity of venting its spleen and summarily “turned him down” without explanation. Such is the manner in which it seeks to retain the confidence and respect of its staff. Another nasty virulent habit it has contracted is the indiscriminate giving of second-class certificates to approved good men who quit the service. Its idea being, I presume, to prevent indifferent men from falsely representing elsewhere the standard of telegraph operating in New Zealand. This may perhaps serve to salve the department’s conscience, but does not exculpate it from the charge of spitefuluess. 1 said indiscriminate second-class certificates because in one instance the recipient of one of these happened to be an undoubted and widely known first-class man, and even he had to make strong representations to overcome the obstinacy of the department, and obtain a first-class certificate. Bat the salient point is this—the-great efficiency of the New Zealand service is a theme the department is never tired of harping on, but the officer on whom it depends for its information declared to a certain operator that there were only nine or ten men to whom he was prepared to issue first-class certificates, and this out of a staff of over a hundred and in the head office. How is this paradox explained? Is it a subterfuge to bamboozle deserving men out of first-class certificates? or is the department misinformed by those responsible? or are those responsible irresponsible? Otherwise it is a confession wholly subversive to the department’s statement regarding the efficiency of the service. Neither will the institution of “ learners’ galleries” permanently overcome the difficulty. The question is this—will these galleries eventually benefit New Zealand or the Commonwealth? It is very probable the moment the majority of these boys become efficient they will follow the lead of the New Zealand wireless operators and tab© what’s going unless there is a radical change in the present unsatisfactory conditions. As for the rest, they will assuredly break down, for, notwithstanding the department’s assurance that the head office would he recruited from the country offices, boys are at present arriving here direct from the Oamarn learners’ gallery. This mis-statement on the part of . the department not only shows that it is quite capable of making more mis-statements, but also serves to demonstrate its callous injustice in bringing boys raw from the gallery to run the risk of breaking down (in their operating) under the stress of traffic in_ the head office. As for the unrest originating principally with those “ who had not sufficient courage or application to face examinations, but who were, as a rule, proficient in the art of grumbling” this is another precious paralogism. Those who grumble most and have most cause to grumble are those who have passed examinations and derived little, if any benefit therefrom, and the reason why others have not passed examinations Is that, after varied hours at nerve-racking work they desiderate fresh air exorcise. But the department desires them to lucubrate after moil and toil to the gratification of the optician and

physician. Moreover, those who have ‘not passed examinations are not with* 'held from working first-class wires. 'Their want of technical knowledge m rno wise derogates from their capabilities as operators, and any attempt to utilise the knowledge they might possess would be held reprehensible. It is unconscionable and farcical in the extreme to compel men to pass examinations before they are getting at least a working wage. To sum up, the department will have to do something other than found learners' galleries to stem the exodus. —I am, etc., OEDIRUS.