POSTAL EMPLOYEES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10560, 10 April 1920, Page 11

POSTAL EMPLOYEES

-* -«► THE OFFICIAL REPLY “CRUDE SIDE-STEPPING,’* SAYS SECRETARY. Mr H. E. Combs (Secretary to the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association) made an interesting statement to a “Times”- representative yeoterday by way of answer to the rejoinder of the. Secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department to his remarks in regard to the growing discontent and dissatisfaction in the postal service. “The; official reply.” declared Mr Combs, “can only be characterised-as a crude pieco of side-stepping, but as it has been circulated by. rhe Press Association, it would be ns well to correct some of the wrong impressions it gives. Illy remarks were intended to show your readers the causes of the discontent prevailing; and I was, -I thought, careful to make it clear that it was-the impossibility of making ends meet which was stirring the majority of officers to attend meetings and giro expression to.their feelings. The other matters were . secondary- to this, but the department giver, them first place in importance; doubtless because it very sensitive to attention being drawn to them, and dismisses the. major “alter with a dogon -words or so. lha classification of last year was undoubtedly a big improvement on those of the previous years; but, in making this statement, the department should also have stated the extent,of’the leeway that had to be made up. UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION. - “It should also have told' you how the increases were distributed. If it had done so, you-’would have learned that the ‘rank and filer,* excluding telegraph messengers, had to bp_ content with an average increase of £35 for the year, while the senior officers enjoyed an average increase of £ol each. As a large proportion of tho rank and file were entitled under the old order of things to an increment of £lO or £ls, and only comparatively a few of the seniors had similar expectations, the discrepancy has even a wider significance than the figures give. “The basis of the new classification, Mr Combs added, “was to be a fiveyear training period (beyond the messenger stage) and thou,a decent living wage. Tho salary scales which were to give effect to this basis were -not fixed finally until six months after it had been determined upon, and were certainly better in some particulars than those at first drafted. But the scale of salaries, although important, was nob nearly so important as its-application to individuals. It was on this point I that the service had its .greatest grievI ance, and it was the consequential out- ! spoken criticism that constituted tho i head and front of my offending. ;! - ' SALARY SCALE IGNORED. I “You can best judge whether I was ! called on’ to remain, silent or ather- : Wise when I toll you that the telegraph I messenger who is promoted to cadet- ; ship to-day-will (if the five-year-period of training and the salary, scale are not ■ altered, in of .five years’ cadotfhip be advanced to a salary of £IBO pfer annum. , The asI seciatiqn considered (apparently wrongly) that the cadet who had already ' completed five- years as such should , also enjoy this salary of £IBO per annum. Surely perfectly reasonable and logical. But,, what was the actual ] case? Officers who-had completed eix, j ( seven, and in some cases practically i eight years* service, were placed on a I salary of £165. You can get confirmation of this statement from, the close!- ' fication list itself. -The service • had been able to prove to the-satisfaction of members of Parliament and to the National . Government that the service - was, and had been underpaid; yet tho reclassification . authorised by Parliament still continued such under-pay-ments to hundreds of officers, for the breakdown of the classification at tho point mentioned had consequential effects on officers both above and boloiv the point named. In the General Division (postmen, etc.), the saitfe thing happened, and men who had. every reason to. believe ; they were guaranteed £156 per annum in their sixth year of service found themselves down foi £l3O, with a further year to serve before reaching the £166 mark. THAT OFFENDING CHICULAR.

“The association’s circular advising officers dissatisfied to appeal was issued with this sort of thing in mind, and there I 'was a clause-in its suggested form of appear which covered the point I have just stressed; but/ m the association exists to assist its members, surely the issue of the circular was only a business-like course to adopt. It is particularly strange to hear the department offering criticism on this point, for on tho front page of_ 'its classification list the department itself advised dissatisfied officers that they

could appeal, and at a later date sent a circular telegram in which it used the words: ‘There is a legal remedy for individual grievances, and it is hoped that officers will re-read tho notification on the first page of the classification, list, and if -they feel they have not received the consideration they merit, will promptly appeal against their classification.’ If we were wrong in issuing our circular, we evidently erred in good company. The department’s telegram also went on to say: ‘Some officers have forgotten that, in addition to providing an increased emolument, the object of the Act is to reclassify officers according to their value to the department.’ This statement was also a fruitful source of appeals, and no one could wonder_ at it when they know, as the association docs, that little differentiation is made between. the work assigned to Junior officers and that allotted to seniors of the same grade. Take the officers on £163 a year, referred to earlier. They work shift and shift about with officers drawing £270; while the postman on £156 is interchangeable with they post, man on £2OB. The technicalities of classification arc complicated, and I have no desire to exhaust the patience of your readers in going into them, hut I think the statements made are ,of a character to he readily appreciated hy the ‘man in the street.* ” THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE. “As to the departmental declaration that tho association’s representative (myself) admitted that the ‘alleged’ (the department’s word) grievances just described to you were overstated fn the association’s circular, such is not correct. This matter was discussed with the Appeal Board at the first meeting I was able to attend ("Wanganui), and what I have stated to you I duly submitted for the consideration of tho hoard. As it was considered by the

board that rectification of such, a grievance was beyond the powers given to' it by the Act, I had perforce to allow the matter to rest there for the time being. But both then and since, in private conversations with those interested in the classification, Svhether appellants or otherwise, I have always maintained that Hie cardinal principle had been departed from. INACCURACIES.

“Accuracy, however, is not the outstanding feature of the department’s reply. Take, for instance, its declaration that the average salary for 1919 is £55.2il better than the average salary for 1914. In an official letter dated 23/10/19, the department told the association that the average salary for 1919 was. £171.98. Tito Public Service Commissioner’s annual report for 1914 shows the average salary in the Post and Telegraph Department for that year to be £135.47. The improvement in the period is therefore £36.51, which is a long way short of the £55.24 now claimed by the department. The figures relating to resignations are not capable of the same checks. I can only say in reply to the department’s figures that the association keeps a- roll on the card system, and it has the cards of 1033 members who left us during tho year as a consequence of leaving the employ of the department. As, unfortunately, our roll does not yet include every employee of the department, there must be resignations, retirements, etc., in addition to those we have recorded. It is agreed that in a large staff such as the Post and Telegraph there must always be a considerable number who tire of their employment; but it is seriously submitted that the wastage disclosed by even the department’s figures indicates something abnormally wrong; and it is a little surprising to note that the department passes this matter oyer so glibly. One would think, judging by its remarks, that the service .was run by a lot of youngsters and telegraph messengers.” If the salaries paid lead the department to gloss over the facts in. this way, there may he some excuse for there are certainly an unusual number of men who reached man’s estate years ago and who have, many of them, paid a visit to the firing line and are drawing salaries which the present-day tradesman, or unskilled worker for the matter of that, would scoff at. . MESSENGERS. “Neither is it -right to tell the public that telegraph messengers _ merely join the department as a stepping-stone to other employment. Many of the messengers do leave after hut short service, but I venture the opinion that the majority of them 'would be content to stay if their messenger service counted for anything, and the immediate future held out as bright prospects as other employment does. The messenger staff was one-ninth of the total staff on 1/4/1919 (not one-seventh as stated by the department), and numbered 823 messengers. During the preceding twelve months the department accepted 12,100,000 telegrams, and this year is expected to disclose a big increase. In 1914 the messenger staff numbered 833, or ton more than five years later, and tho telegrams accepted by the department Jfumbercd 10,700,000, or 1,400,000 less. Several things may he inferred from tliis, sucli as easy times in 1914; but from a staffing point of view tho association is of the opinion that tho department cannot get boys.” . V-A ; ...THE REAL POINT.. „ . “But all this is 'beside the jJofaV "concluded Mr Combs, “which was and is how to make ends meet. The department dismisses the cost of living in half a dozen words : and I have no doubt the-majority of its 7000 odd employees heartily wish they could as easily do likewise. But with the majority of them it is a problem that remains with them every hour of the day, and probably disturbs their dreams at night. ..Either the . department is’ not ’ awake to the conditions ; under which’ its employees live,: or else . the . conditions are not worthy of official attention. One can hardly think the latter, so I would suggest iffiat tho department might make inquiries amongst its employees as to how they are managing, what ore the/ going without, and what shifts they and their wives are put to to keep the children fed and clothed. It would, if nothing else, show tho staff that the department is interested in their problems, and not blind to them; that it is sympathetic, and not, indifferent, as its casual dismissal of the cost-of-living problem might lead any onlooker to believe.”