P. AND T. SERVICE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20866, 5 November 1929, Page 9

P. AND T. SERVICE.

RECLASSIFICATION AND SALARY CUTS.

STATEMENT BY EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION.

REPLY TO SIR JOSEPH WARD

The following statement has been issued by the New Zealand Post and Telegraph ■Employees Association, replying to the Prime Minister (Sir Joseph Ward) and the Uniformity Committee regarding the reclassification of the Post and Telegraph service, and criticising the Government’s statement with respect to salary cuts and salary increases:— First and foremost, the statement issued by the Prune Minister to the press for general publication in nowise answers the caifc represented to the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-general, individually a j i? 1 , y> by the executive of the Post ? v Telegraph Employees’ Association on behalf of all sections of the Post and Telegraph staffs. WHAT WAS ASKED FOR. So far as the present Government is concerned, the Post and Telegraph Association has on no occasion made representations for the restoration of the salary cuts. The change of Government so nearly approximated the quinquennial date for reclassification of positions and review of the salary schedules,' that the question of restoring salary cuts was abandoned in favour of urging a comprehensive revaluation of salaries on the true basis of the worth of services rendered on present-day money values. The association has always maintained that tiie salary cuts were not justified when imposed in 1922, neither were the cumulative effects, through officers remaining stationary ever since, visualised by legislators at the time. The comparative rate of promotion in the respective services has made these effects more marked in the Post and Telegraph service than in other services, ana, whereas the late Prime Minister stated at election time that practically every officer had, by increments or promotion, regained the lost salary, approximately 60 per cent, of the original officers in the Post and Telegraph service who were reduced to the lower .maxima have remained stationary ever since, and all officers are still suffering by reason of the lower maxima a tr tamable. 'Therefore, the Post and Telegraph service has every justification for expecting and requesting that this year’s quinquennial review or positions and salaries be assessed on the increased output and responsibility that expanding services .have demanded of every officer. NEW SCHEDULES THE REAL ISSUE. On the occasion when tfca Post and Telegraph_ Association interviewed the Prime Minister and the Postmastergeneral individually, the due date (April 1, 1929) for reclassification to take effect was approaching, and the gist of the representations made was that the secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department should be instructed to Undertake the quinquennial review upon considerations of the value of services rendered, and without hindrance by the Uniformity Committee's personnel or its policy of uniform salary schedules for all State services. As previously pointed out, uniform salary schedules do not produce comparative uniform remuneration when applied to services where numbers, and opportunities for promotion are disproportionate. Both Ministers acknowledged this fact, and the justice of the general -case presented, and they promised that the matter would receive careful consideration. V The Prime Minister stated that he did not know of the Uniformity Committee's sxistence, that he did not see the need for such a body, and he would inquire into its past operations. When no replies were forthcoming from either the Prime Minister or the Post-master-general, and when nothing eventuated on or after the due date for reclassification to be put into effect; tho Post and Telegraph Association made attempts to reopen discussions with the Government. On August 16 last, the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-general together received a large deputation from the association's biennial conference, when the, . spokesman for the association prefaced' bis case with the statement that the deputation was not asking for the restoration of the salary cuts, but for the reclassificaion of the service together with an improvement in the salary schedules. In reply, the Prime Minster agreed with the representations as to the want of fairness in the . treatment of the post and telegraph service, which, he stated, was a “ clogged ” department—clogged on account of tße lack of opportunities for promotion, and clogged on account of the difficulty created when the transfer of officers to other departments was stopped. He also stated that the matters were entitled to receive the fullest and most careful consideration from the Postmastergeneral and himself. He waa not in a position to give an affirmative answer that day, but he hoped within the next fortnight to be able to reply definitely. ■ As the promised reply was not received, a letter was sent to the Prime Minister on September 20, asking for it, but beyond acknowledgement, the only statement, received was to the effect that no decision had yet been reached in the - matter. Owing to the Prime Minister's subsequent illness, the next request for a reply was made by a deputation to the ActingLeader (Mr G. W. Forbes), on the 21st ultimo. The Minister was unaware at that stage that our case was not bound up in the question of the restoration of the salary cuts, and he undertook to see the Prime Minister to endeavour to secure a specific reply within one or two days. HOW THE REPLY WAS RECEIVED. Next day, the 22nd ultimo, our association learnt that a general statement regarding civil servants’ salaries was being released by the Prime Minister for publication in the newspapers. At 12 noon a request was made personally to Mr Forbes for a copy of the statement before it was given general publication; but this request was refused. Consequently, our association was placed in the position of obtaining from the newspapers the first information on what purported to be a reply to our representations (among others) made personally to the Prime Minister. -GENERAL INCREASES SOUGHT. From the statement thus obtained we find under the heading “ General Increases Sought” that the Prime Minister is reported as saying: “What the Post and Telegraphh Officers’ Association reajly has represented to the Government is not that the salary cuts he restored, and not that the service be re-classified, but that all the salary scales, from message boys to executive officers, be increased generally; and the representations made to me by the representatives of the three parties (political) were in the direction that special consideration in this regard should be given to the officers of the Post and Telegraph Department.” Our association affirms that wa did not ask for the restoration of the salary cuts, and we issue the correction that we stressed the request for re-classification of the service in conjunction with improved salary schedules for nil ranks. The mention of the representations made by representatives of the three parties, refers to a committee of parliamentarians which was set up from a general assemblage of members of the House that had listened to a statement of the post and telegraph case by association officials. That committee did not get an audience with the Prime Minister till over a month from the first attempt, and when it did make its representations in support of the case of post and telegraph officers, the Prime Minister bound its members over to secrecy until such time ns he made an open statement to Parliament. Since the press statement has appeared, our association has learnt that when the Prime Minister met the committee referred to, the Secretary of the department was also present, and he put a different aspect on some of the matters which tended to discredit the_ information from our association on which the committee waa making its- representations. Without knowing how far this applied in detail, our association can affirm that every item of information given the Parliamentary Committee can be substantiated in fall, and we stand by what we said.

SPECIAL COMMITTEE’S REPORT. Under the heading “ Special Committee’s Report ” the statement makes reference to the various Government Departments now having the same scale of salaries, and the sentence concludes with the astounding assertion that “Government could not consider giving an improved scale to one section of the service while denying it to others.” We ask: Why not? All the evidence is available from a perusal and comparison of classification lists to show that the retention of uniform salary schedules is untenable. Efficient officers of from 20 to 25 years’ service in the Post and Telegraph Department are on the maximum salary of the rank and file, whereas officers in other services are promoted from that salary m approximately half that time. Moreover,'whereas post and telegraph officers remain indefinitely on the rank and file maximum, owing to a dearth of executive positions to which appointments are necessary before receiving higher salaries, officers in other services average about three years only on the rank and file maxima because of the inverse proportion of higher positions to rank and file officers. Without traversing the unfavourable comparisons at length, it should suffice to show that, since Post and Tefegraph Officers ware restricted to promotions within their own service in 1918, there has been an increasing congestion of officers on the maxima of the rank and file, which, to quote the instance of the clerical division alone, has reached the total of 1972 officers in the last _ published list. Inclusive of administrative, professional, and executive positions of nil classes there were only 716 opportunities of promotion for these officers; and whereas the average number of promotions is 25 annually, the annual accretion exceeds 100. It can therefore be readily seen that a very large proportion of officers must of necessity be indefinitely held up on the rank and file salary maximum. NOT AN OPPORTUNE TIME. The Prime Minister’s statement on the question of improved public service salaries may be condensed into two short paragraphs, one by the heads of departments which.reads as follows:—“To restore the salary cuts in the several services at the present time after making allowances for the improvements which nave been granted, would cost at least ffjOOO.OOO per annum,’’ and the Prime Minister's own words, “ The present is not an _ opportune time for considering emims of this nature, involving as they do an additional expenditure of more than 11,000,000 per annum.” the foregoing it will be apparent that the Prime Minister has seized upon the maximum requests of the various services as an excuse for denying any salary improvement at all, without oven conceding the respective organisations the opportunity of negotiating upon • their genuine grievances. Without retracting in any degree the just claims put forward tor general increases in Post and Telegraph salaries, the association claims that definite improvement should have been afforded to the most neceasitious and aeßervinpc of the officers concerned; and, in addition, that an assurance should have been given of serious consideration next year of the whole question. An additional expenditure of £1,000,000, even though justly warranted, is no doubt a bogey to members of the political party bow in power; but it is to be deplored that their sense of equity did not ensure that something less than a flat turning down of any_ alleviation to the thousands or workers in the public service, whose remuneration, in numbers of instances, provides them with a bare subsistence. .Tso sum of £68,000 would restore the officers at the head of the rank and file classes of the Post and Telegraph Department to the salary paid before the inruction of the "cuts” in 1921-22, and would thus have provided a higher maximum, iQ'the future, for the thousands of officers in progress to the top of their class. Assuming that the Post and Telegraph Department comprises one quarter of the public service, we, arrive at the -SSn nni. on , a s um. approximating £270,000 or one-fourth of the £1,000,000 quoted by the Prime Minister would have removed a great deal of the present discontent in all services, leaving full consideration of. the various demands, until next year. SPECIAL COMMITTEE’S REPORT. In tha paragraph numbered (1) by. the Special Committee it was stated that the present maximum salaries of lower graded officers generally compare favourably with those ruling in outside employment. The association contends that after an average Of 13 years’ service a salary of £240 armum \ which is that paid to over 1000 general division officers, such as postmen, exchange clerks, linemen, etc., is so httle in excess of that received by unskilled labourers as to be wholly unworthy of perpetuation. When it is taken into consideration that an eight to nine-year training period (as against the accepted five-year apprenticeship in outside circles) is in operation, and that officers may remain on £240 indefinitely without further advancement it cannot be neld that this salary compares at all favourably with that paid to skilled workers in outside occupations. It -is difficult to Secure a suitable basis for comparison with outside, workers in respect to telegraphists, mail room clerks, etc, but the associated banks pay their tellers more than £loo_ per annum in excess of the_ salary received by money-order and savings bank tellers. Telegraphists in Australia receive £348, instead of the £203 received by their brother post and telegraph workers in New Zealand performing similar duties. The statement that the maxima of £240 and £295 fixed for the rank of file general clerical divisions, respectively, provides an adequate remuneration, cannot be supported. In 1020' the late Mr Massey increased the maximum salaries then paid to £258 and £320 per a annum. These amounts were reduced m 1021-22 to the first quoted figures. The cost of living to-day is as high as it was in 1020. and despite the fact that the report shows that the unit output of work is greater than ever before, the Government’s statement actually contends that salaries are commensurate with the value of the services rendered. The statements contained in paragraphs (2) and (3) by the Special Com-' mittee are not denied, but it can be definitely asserted that the great majority of the rank and file of the service have* not benefited and cannot benefit without an alteration to the present salary schedules, which is the sum of substance of the claims of the post and telegraph employees. Concerning paragraph (4); The general regarding of the various services has, in the case of the Post and Telegraph Depurtrnent, advanced 141 officers from the £295 rank, with the promise of a further iSon officers in the near future, leaving 1725 officers still on the inadequate maximum of £295 per annum, and, as is also the case of over 1000 men in the genera! division on the salary maximum of £240, of these 1725 officers will remain indefinitely without advancement. In respect to paragraph (5) the right of appeal to an independent board of appeal is non-existent for the raising of the maxima of the rank and file classes, and can he exercised only in respect of " nonpromotion. With regard to paragraph (G) the statutory quinquennial reclassification of the department undertaken this year, while, revaluing higher positions, fails to take into account the value of the services performed by the rank and file classes, or in any way deal with the low economic standard imposed by the existing salary schedules. The statement contained in paragraph (7) that Restoration of the salary cuts or the general increasing of all salary scales would have a far-reaching effect and wouttl tend to create a false standard of values that is bound to have a reactionary effect” cannot be sustained. On the contrary, it is manifest that a maximum. salary of £240 per annum, to a married man with responsibilities, imposes upon him a standard of living far below that which is aimed at by every rightthinking individual,, and further, that a i, Ba l3T le s directly commensurate with the value of the work performed, cannot logically create a false standard of values. At present thousands of officers are struggling to obtain tho bare necessities of life, and any untoward expenditure or sickness places them in the direst straits. It cannot be contended that the increases sought, the justification of which is admitted by most of the members of all political parties, would place such officers in a specially favoured position. The post and telegraph employees because of the different hours of duty, conditions, of service, unfavourable comparison with other departments as regards promotion, retiring salary, etc., are seeking separate treatment. The heavy banking up of officers at the maxima of the rank and fi|e classes in their department, together with the other points of dissimilarity mentioned, demand some compensation. and tho fact alone that other public service organisations are pressing for salary improvement*, more than justi-

fiea the claims of the Post and Telegraph service, which is everywhere recognised aa _ the Cinderella of the public service. With reference to the admission, “ That there may be certain cases of hardship, but these can be individually considered in connection with regrading, etc.,” the association definitely discounts the efficacy of the suggested way of .removing hardship. which undoubtedly exists to a wide extent in the post and telegraph service owing to the low .rates of pay obtaining in the rank and file classes. These cases cannot be dealt with under regrading. Regrading, as the name implies, is confined to designated positions above the rank and file/ and power to regrade is vested in the permanent head; but the alteration of tho schedules to provide for a better economic standard for the rank and file is wholly dependent upon legislative enactment. The question of the relief of hardship—of which much has been heard recently in connection with taxation proposals—is a very sore one with the officers of the Post and Telegraph Department, as the “hardship” clause in the Public Service Expenditure Adjustment Act-of 1921 was so framed that not one officer of the service wps able to obtain any relief, no matter how genuine his claim. The Government’s statement goes on to deal with tho financial position, of the Dominion, and the amount of unemployment that exists as reasons why the present time is not opportune for considering any claims for improved salary schedules_ in the Government service. The association's reply is that the Post and Telegraph Department is able to show a net profit after providing for interest and depreciation charges, in addition to performing many services at considerably less than cost. Further, that when rates and charges were last substantially reduced to the public, the financial position of the department was not as buoyant as to-day. and the concessions given were largely at the expense of the lower paid officers. Traversing the Special Committee’s report, the Government’s statement goes on to say that “ the question is not so much a matter of restoring something that the present employees of the service have lost, as an adjustment of grades of salary.” The association contends that this is the crux of the whole question. An upward adjustment of salaries is the only tair and equitable way to restore generally the economic standard that obtained years ago. It now takes 32s to purchase the equivalent of a pound sterling in 1914. The association has noted with surprise that part of the Government’s statement which deals with the distinction that should be drawn in respect of the Post and Telegraph Department where there is a greater number of officers on the lower scales. In commenting on this we have to say that tho position spoken of by Sir Joseph Ward in 1918 is to-day accentuated in every way, as the following extra from Hansard, December 4, 1918, will show:— There is a proposal that no officer is to be transferred to anv other department except with the concurrence in writing of the Secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department and of the permanent head of that other department. I want to point out the need for this. At present the position is that many of the more important officers in the Post and Telegraph Department have been withdrawn to other departments, and the Post and Telegraph Department is getting into the position of being, as tar as its highly-trained officers . are concerned, a _ depleted service the_ greatest inconvenience has been experienced, particularly during the last two or three years on account of transfers that have taken place, and it is necessary in the interests of the department that there should be no transfers except with the concurrence of the head of the department and of the other department concerned. With this law on the Statute Book it will not be possible for anyone in another department to go to a postal employee and hold out inducements for him to leave the Postal Department. _ . . . This service is so big and so important that it requires to _ train up its own staff, and we require to have the salaries fixed to enable men in the service to know that when they are doing their task fairly and well there is an incentive to them to keep on and not to weaken the service by leaving. This extract is but one of the many statements in the volume of Hansard referred to which could be effectively argued to meet the present general position in the Post and Telegraph Department, and also effectively to answer that part of the Government’s statement that denis with “ transfer to other Government departments.” lyith regard to the Government’s reference - to the superannuation fund, the association can also point to the above-men-tioned volume of Hansard to show that in 1918 Sir Joseph Ward recorded that “ at present there is an amount of £164,000 due to the superannuation fund and periodically the amount increases.” The considerable payment to the fund that will be necessary to place it on a sound financial footing is wholly due to the Government’s failure to meet its annual obligations to the fund, according to the estimate of the Government Actuary from time to time. It is wrong, however, to infer that the fund is insolvent, seeing that the contributions and interest on investments meet the outgo; even though the actuary’s anticipated ultimate liability on the fund could not be met on the present state of its finances. It is a matter of opinion as to the urgency for overhauling the leeway caused by the previous short and non-payments by the Government. but the association strongly asserts that the needs in this direction constitute no excuse for the Government evading the pressing and urgent question of paying fair economic remuneration for the services of its officers.

ADDINGTON WORKSHOPS. RESOLUTION OF PROTEST. (Special to Dailt Times.) CHRISTCHURCH, November 4. At a mass meeting of 500 employees of the Addington Railway Workshops held in the lunch hour to-day, the following resolution was carried unanimously:— ‘That this mass meeting of Addington Workshops employees is disgusted with the Prime Minister’s wages cut statement, believing he would have redeemed his election promises, and we urge the executive of the railway societies to make further representations of our claims.”' A copy of the resolution is to be forwarded to the leaders of the three parties and to the various executives.