LATE CORRESPONDENCE. Dirt Track Ratings.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19237, 26 November 1930, Page 9

LATE CORRESPONDENCE. Dirt Track Ratings.

To the Editor. Dear Sir,—On reading your paper last evening I was very surprised to see a letter from someone who evidently does not study times referring to two B grade riders being placed in the A grade. lam probably the person referred to, and if “Disappointed” will look up your edition of Monday evening, he will see'what my time was, the third fastest of the night, Australians included, and also third fastest for any local rider since the inception of dirt track racing in Christchurch. I think that “Disappointed” would be well advised to leave handicapping to the proper authorities, who have the confidence of the riders.—l am, etc., C. BLACKLOCK. Civil Servants. To the Editor. rJear Sir.—l see a farmers’ deputation waited on the Government, and Mr Higgins, of Matamata. says: “We have 80,000 civil servants in this country that are highly overpaid,” and he asked that a substantial reduction be made. Clear them all out is the only solution to the problem. One head with one efficient woman clerk can do all the work where six are at present employed. I see the Hon R. Masters, acting for Mr Ransom, is setting up a committee to go into the matter. As a taxpayer and supporter of the present Government, I certainly shall not vote for them any more unless these pests are sent about their business. These civil servants will tell you they are all right, and draw their salaries once a fortnight. Cut them all off and the Government and country will be more in favour. If my letter is published I shall send a Press cutting of it to the actingPrime Minister, and hope he will do something.—l am, etc., TAXPAYER. North Canterbury. Labour And Wages. To the Editor. Dear Sir, —The present slump has given a great impetus to the study of economics, and I am one of the students. I eagerly read the writings of Labour M.P.’s, and look for more. Mr E. J. Howard gets me nowhere, and he candidly admits he does not intend to. He enters the economic maze, ties a reel of cotton on to the gate he entered by, walks round for a few minutes, during which time he discusses all manner of irrelevant subjects, then follows back along the thread and sidles out the same door he entered by. When I saw the name of Mr M’Combs, the Labour Party’s professor of economics, above an article in Saturday evening’s “Star,” I made sure that at last I would find out who slump and what should be done to end it. Once again I was disappointed. The article was mainly extracts from a book written with the intention of proving that the secret of economic happiness is high wages and a high standard of living. It is to be assumed that Mr M’Combs subscribes to this doctrine, and I would ask him to say if he thinks that higher wages in New Zealand would have prevented the present slump either in New Zealand or throughout the world. I would suggest that when replying Mr M’Combs should take into consideration the causes of slumps during the last 100 years, paying special attention to our 1921 depression, when wages w T ere never higher, and to the 1909 slump, when pre-war wages and conditions ruled.— I am, etc., GOOD OLD DAYS. Teachers’ Sick Leave. To the Editor. Sir,—-Will you grant me space to comment on the figures published in connection with the above, and to traverse briefly some of the remarks made thereon. I have been privileged to peruse the tables of figures submitted by the Education Department; they are clearly set out, their import is plain, and it is very regrettable that such apparent misconstruction should have been placed on them. To take Canterbury first; the percentage on leave is given as 32.1 per cent. This would make it appear that, in the course of about three years, practically 100 per cent of our teachers would have been on leave of some sort, a deduction very wide of the mark. The Department’s 32.1 per cent is compiled in a special way, for a special purpose; and a special footnote to the table gives warning against misinterpretation of the figures. The footnote reads thus:—“Teachers on leave of absence in more than one month are counted separately in each month that such leave occurred. Consequently the percentages given in the last two columns (Canterbury 23.9 sick leave, 8.4 special) are not to be read as showing the percentage of teachers in any particular district that had sick or special leave. Yet, apparently, the figures have been so read, so misconstrued, and so published. The real position is not so “extraordinary” as some would make it appear. In Canterbury, as in nearly every district, July is the peak month fa: leave, December is the lowest. The figures for Canterbury are as follow, I quote only two months: — Teachers On sick Special leave leave July 1195 43 4 December .. 1195 18 7 Month av. .. 1195 23 10 Dominion Figures. Teachers On sick Special leave leave July 6438 299 32 December .. 6438 106 24 Month av 6438 166 36 The figures mean this, that in Canterbury month by month, one teacher in every thirty-six is on leave of some sort for a week or more; in the Dominion, one in thirty-three. There is nothing particularly alarming in the position. If a firm with thirty-six employees had, on an average, one of its hands absent for a week or more each month I doubt if the position would justify panic measures on the part of the Board of Directors. One word as to finance, and that is what the Department is concerned with. A member of the local board stated that teachers on special leave receive pay up to one month. This is not so. A teacher on special leave for, say, one month, loses not only that month’s pay, but also one-fifth of another month’s pay. Again, an actual saving is sometimes effected by employing relieving teachers, at a lower salary, in place of those whose sick leave time-allowance expired. It isavery regrettable as I said before that utterly wrong impressions should have been formed and spread abroad, and that a gentleman holding a responsible public position go so far as to say:—“This board is encouraging them by giving leave where it is not warranted.” I wonder whether that gentleman had even cursorilyscanned the figures before attempting to discuss them.—l am, etc., 11. F.^PENLINGTON. _ President Xew Zealand Educational 'ritute.