POST AND TELEGRAPH OFFICERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17351, 16 May 1924, Page 13

POST AND TELEGRAPH OFFICERS.

MINISTER’S REPLY. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, May 15. Following is a copy of a letter forward ed by the Postmaster-General to the secretary of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association : - *Tn reference to your letter of May 6, I have to inform you that when the new schedules covering the Post and Telegraph Department were drawn up in 1910 an endeavour was made to provide salaries which compared favourably with those paid by outside employers, and with the remuneration of other Government employees. Inquiry made before the schedules were recently revised showed that the present salaries arc in many instances higher than those paid in outside employment. I consider that the schedules as now drawn up provide for a fair and reasonable payment for the work which officers are called upon to do, and • I believe that the salaries now proposed compare favourably with those paid in private employment for work which can reasonably be compared with that done in the" department. The Government’s proposals were placed before your organisation on April 17 for comment, and, although your association has commented on the schedules orally and at very considerable length in writing, 1 am unable to find in the statements any evidence to show that the salaries proposed by the Government for clerks and telegraphists are not so generous as those paid to clerks outside, or that the proposed remuneration of linemen, postmen, messengers, etc.; is not as high as that paid to persons doing work of approximately equal importance in private employment.” “Apparently your association is not aware that the salaries proposed by it are considerably higher than those paid outside the department If the salaries proposed by your organisation for linemen, postmen, messengers, etc., were agreed to, such men would be in the very happy position of receiving higher salaries than those bow paid to clerks employed in hanks, insurance, and shipping offices, and the offices of the largest local bodies. It should be quite unnecessary for me to remind you that the work done by the clerks I have referred to is worth more than the duties performed by the rank and file officers" of the general division.

“Your association’s proposals for the clerical division also provide for higher salaries for clerks and telegraphists than are being paid to rank and file clerks employed by almost all the largest institutions in the Dominion. I fail to understand why a postal clerk in his eighth year of service shouljJ receive approximately £IOO per annum more than a bank clerk of similar service, or why the departmental officer should be paid £llO to £124 per annum more than a clerk in his eighth year of service in an insurance or shipping office. It is also not clear to me why a postal officer, after’ eight years’ training, is worth £l5O per annum more than clerks of equal training employed by some of the largest local bodies.

“I am aware that when these comparisons are made your association replies that the clerks employed outside are grossly underpaid. It would cost approximately £*150,000 to bring tho salaries and wages of the 9137 post and telegraph employees up to the standard laid down by your association. It would be interesting to know what amount would be required to bring the many thousands of other employees in the Dominion up to the same standard.

“At the risk of repetition, let me emphasise that the Government’s proposals for increasing the salaries and wages of departmental employees involve an additional expenditure of approximately £125,000 for the current financial year. It is claimed that remuneration inside the department, especially that of the rank and file, will compare favourably with that paid outside. The association’s proposals would involve an additional expenditure of approximately £450,000 for this year, and would provide for conside! ably higher salaries for the ranu and file than are paid to rank and file clerks and others in outside employment. I have already informed you that I know of no reason why one section of employees should be granted verj* much larger increases of salary than are likely to be paid to any other section.”