SECOND SALARY CUT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16780, 8 July 1922, Page 13

SECOND SALARY CUT.

ASSOCIATION’S VIEW. "NOT JUSTIFIED." Interviewed in regard to the second salary cut. Air H. E. Combs, secretary of the Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association, made the following statement to a n Star ” reporter ‘‘From the attitude adopted by the Prime Alinister in meeting a deputation from all branches of the Public Service recently, it was fairly clear that, no matter what the statistical figures' disclosed, the Government had determined to reduce the salaries of public servants, irrespective of what the result might be so far as their home life was j concerned. There were a few who hoped against hope that reason and justice would prevail, but, in the main, a very pessimistic attitude was taken up after that interview. The pessimists have been justified by the event, and the whole of the community should realise, if it does not already do so, that the Government's method of meeting their financial difficulties is to levy a special tax on their own servants. REDUCTIONS NOT JUSTIFIED. “ Air Justice Frazer's calculations of the cost of living position as | between 1920 and to-day discloses that, not only should the second cut not have., been made, but also that the first cut was not justified. He shows very clearly that, when the 1920 adjustment upwards was agreed to, the cost of living then stood ! at 73 per cent above the 1914 level, j The best increase that the rank and file workers in the Post and Telegraph | Department received under the adjust- ' ment of 1920 was equal to 56 per cent, ; but hundreds did not attain that > level. To-day. Air Justice. Frazer calculates the cost of living as 62 per cent above tho 1914 level, and already, by the operation of tho first cut, the publie servant has been reduced to the 46 per cent level. The second cut brings them down to somewhere about 39 per cent, a very wide difference indeed. A CLAIM DISPUTED. “ The claim of the Prime Alinister that the agreements of 1920 were all ! based, or recognised by both sides as being based, on the food group figures will not bear examination. At that particular date the food group figures and the all-group figures were practical ly identical, and no one concerned i i the agitation which led to the adjustment declared for a moment that subsequent adjustments on food group figures alone would be satisfactory to those that they represented. A man has to live. He must have a house. He must provide fuel and clothing as well as food for those who are dependent on him, and the alterations of prices as regards rent, clothing, bedding, and other essentials affect his pockets just as deeply as do the variations in prices of food, and, on this plane, the arguments put forward by my organisation have been based. A FURTHER GRIEVANCE. 4 ‘ We have a further grievance against the attitude of the Government in this matter, on the score that our agreement of 19*20 with Air Alassev provided for pro rata increases, should the cost of living statistics show a 10 per cent rise. This they did so long ago ns September, 1920, but the only answer to our repented request*, made t<, have the upward adjustments effected was to have the agreement repudiated in tr.to, so that riot only has the.ser.viVc the absolute right to say that, the decreases have been taken off before they are due, but they also have the right t c claim that increases that were due j were never given, although definitely promised, and that the further cut. j imposed on a statistical basis, before the first cut was due, is going to_ strike very heavily at the man on the * breadand butter lino.* and anyone who has real knowledge of the struggle which such people have had to make ends meet, should have full sympathy with their difficulties. THE ECONOMIC BURDEN. <• It is a question of economic pressure, and the public servant generally mist roa'ise that his livelihood is just -c vulnerable ax that of any other worker in tho community, if. indeed, not more so. No impartial observer . or tho present circumstances can come to any other conclusion but that the I public servant is being specially taxed i, n tli-.f the full measure of the econoj rai" . 1 urden may not fall on shoulders I better able to carry the load.” MARRIED MEN’S SALARIES. | | (Special to the “Star.”) WELLINGTON. July 7. j A phase of the Public Service, salary cut was placed before the Prime Minis- ! tor by Mr Sullivan to-day. It was | ;?#nt of the second reduction bringing l some cl a: <*s of public servants below | the minimum salary of £231 15s for I rn.irn/:d men- He asked that, this i should be restored, as under the first | cut it had declined to £2.19, and under the second cut would be £2lO. Mr Alassev replied that this was an i important question, on which he would I have to obtain official information bei tore answering. 1 Mr Mitchell pointed out that some of ; the service were on the maximum oi ! £230 and only received £32 bonus, inI stead of £95. which other classes obtained. He urged the Government to • remit a portion of the cut for the relict o', these men. who could not possibly maintain a family on the wage, which; after allowing for rent, filing, lighting ami trams, amounted to Ss to feed each individual for a week. Air Massey again replied that he could not answer off-hand, except to i say that there- would be no hardship if > it could be avoided.