THE TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION SCHEME.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12420, 1 August 1902, Page 3

THE TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION SCHEME.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,—At the meeting of teachers held on the 19th ult.. it will be remembered, I moved a resolution to the effect that the toachers present disapproved of the proposal which is being made to set apart as a superannuation subsidy the increments coming to salaries from the adoption of No. 2 Scale, and in moving that resolution I gave specific reasons for doing so. As the result of that resolution Mr W, Davidson tendered his resignation forthwith _as a member of the Superannuation Committee, stating at the same 'time'that it was "the only right, honest, honourable, and fair thing to do." The proposal to surrender any claim • teachers have to No. 2 Scale is fathered by Mr Davidson, and is crystallised in a loader in the last issue of the Journal of Education, the official organ of the New Zealand Educational Institute. Now it appears to me that, as editor. Mr Davidson in that article compromised the institute; for I maintain that, as the institute had had no opportunity of passing an opinion on the proposal, he should not havo' written as he did. This was one of. the reasons I gave for opposing the proposal. But there were other reasons. As a member of the executive of tho New Zealand Educational Institute, Mr Davidson is in a. position to push his proposal, and we find that at the present time he claims that the executive can speak as the mouthpiece of the N.Z.E.1., and this though the teachers as a whole have not had an opportunity to vote on the proposal or speak throug.h their district institutes or delegates; and though at the only meeting called to discuss it the proposal met with a tbrce-to-ono adverse vote, At the same time, too, he speaks as a member of the Superannuation Committee, though a fortnight ago he thought it "right, honest, honourable, and fair" to resign.

Another reason I gave fov opposing (be surrender was the unequal sacrifice made, and as your articles worked out a- few figures showing; tliis there is no necessity to ?o into detail hero, Tho remarks made, however, by Mr Davidson when interviewing the Minister of Education caused me to look up the report of the Commission and to run out a ipw move backing your contention, and at the same time to put them alongside Mr Davidson's figures. In the interview he is reported to have said tint there are 1200 teachers receiving less than £100 a year, and that it was quite out of the question to ask men and women receiving such salaries to contribute 5, 6A, 8, and 10 per cent, out of such salaries. ■ Now what, does Mr Davidson propose? (1) That nearly 500 solo teachers drawing £100 a year and under surrender nothing, though in most cases they have houses or house allowance:;. These- are to draw pound for pound from the subsidy though making no sacrifice. (2| About 700 mistresses and assistants are to surrender £5 each, though none get over £100, and the whole average obpufc £90. The salaries of these 700 tot up about a sixth of the Salary Bill, yet they surrender a third of what Scale No. 2 would add to salaries and double what they draw as a subsidy. Further, they will pay a, minimum of 8 per cent. (s)' Fifty-one head masters, averaging about £320, surrender £5 each, or only £255! Yet these will draw a subsidy of about three times as much! As these ■ three, classes represent nearly 50 percent, of the teachers, and as many more will surrender far too much or far too little, and some get nothing at all back, surely some more dilutable surrender and apportionment can be made. It would be far hotter to bring in No. 2 Scale and make a pro rata levy, as you have suggested.

Leaving Mr Davidson's proposal, T shall briefly refer to Mr Barnctt's letter in your issue of the 28th nil. The meeting on' the 19th nit. was called by advertisement, and all teachers, members of the institute or not, were invited. There was no time to get the institute together. One. infers from Mr Barnotl's letter tbat the higher paid were opposing Mr Davidson's proposal from selfish motives. "This is the most unkiudest cut of all." All sole teachers of £100 a year and los? gain from 2£ to 5 per cent, and surrender nothing; on the other hand, on salaries above, say, £150, the higher the salary the greater the gain! A headmaster with £550 surrenders £5, but may have to his credit, and probably will have, a subsidy of £12 10s. 'in my own case I much prefer tho surrender of No. 2 Scale to the adoption or it; yet I opposed the surrender because of its glaring anomalies. Surely Mr Bamett will admit that we are not all so selfish as to.wish to profit at the expense of others. I am as keen as any to see a superannuation scheme come

into force, and recognise the difficulties in the way; but J also recognise that a scheme based on injustice to so many will be the cause of great disaffection. As this Setter is hurriedly written, it is possible that my figures may bo a little out. I thinlc, however, that they are accurato

enough for my purpose.-

-I am, etc., ,1. .IEITERY.