P. AND T. CLAIMS.

Wairarapa Age, 8 May 1924, Page 3

P. AND T. CLAIMS.

REPLY TO MINISTER. THEIB JVST DUE. Mr H. E. Combs, secretary of the New Zealand Post, and Telegraph Officers’ Association -wrote to the Post-master-General (Mr J. G. Coates),- in answer to the Minister’s pronounce-me-nt made earlier in the week:— “I have to voice the general feeling of disappointment -which will undoubtedly prevail in the service over the point view you have adopted. I must stress the fact that the whole service was reclassified on April 1, 1919, and in that reclassification an improved principle was adopted, viz., the recognition of a training period of five years beyond the telegraph messenger stage, and thereafter rapid progression to the maximum of the class in which an officer -was graded. “Surely the service to-day is entitled to retain the advances made in 1919, even though, in the interim, the Department broke its agreement with the service so far as the general division was concerned, and inserted (1921) additional annual increment steps without giving the men the right to be heard on the matter through their association. If the 1918-19 understanding is kept in mind, then the table of percentage increases as between the 1914 salary scale and the scale submitted by the association today as reasonable, has quite a different bearing. SWITCHBOARD ATTENDANTS. “As to the switchboard attendants: In 1918 the Department provided for a three-year training period, at the end of which the attendant was to be graded first, second, or third class, and paid accordingly. A girl could, under that scheme, reach the maximum salary for the position in her fourth year. Under the association’s present proposals, she reaches her maximum (subject to efficiency) in her fifth year, or one year longer. In 1914 the attendant on the maximum drew £lOO per annum. To-day the Department offers her £l5O —an increase of 50 per cent to cover a 60 per cent increase in the cost of living—the association asks that she be paid £l6O, or exactly what is due. GENERAL DIVISION. “Coming to the general division officer: The postman of 1914 took 15 years (two years being messenger service) to reach his maximum salary. There was no defence for that sort of thing, and it was the Department which first proposed that a general division officer should reach his maximum salary after completing 7 years’ service plus messenger service. And we ask, Why not? Surely the practice prevailing in private employ can be fairly carried into the Public Service. CLERICAL DIVISION. “We note that you now virtually acknowledge that the rank and file, clerical division officer, is entitled to £319 per annum, w’hereas to-day he is paid £295, and while we regret that you cannot accept our method of calculation which would carry such an officer to £340 (we have based our proposals on the strict equity of what is due), it is pleasing to note that it is admitted that at least another £24 per annum is due. “I have heajd Mr Justice Frazer himself say that the award rates of the Arbitration Court are not to be regarded as a maximum, but as the least that should be paid to the average journeyman in his trade. THE BASIC WAGE.

“A committee consisting of the Public Service Commissioner, the general manager of railways, and the secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department did meet in 1919 and they arrived at the conclusion that a fair basic wage for the public servants as in 1914 was £155 per annum. It is admitted that no married officer or widower with children was paid less than £l3O per annum in 1914, and that no similar officer (other than those on the temporary staff) is paid less than £209 15s per annum to-day, and that the proportionate increase between these two is 61 per cent. But this does not answer our representations that no married officer should be paid less than £4 10s per week (£234 per annum) to-day. We hold that the only fair test of what a married officer should be paid is—what amount is sufficient to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and, in our analysis of the spending power of £4 10s per week, we submit we showed conclusively that that amount was only sufficient when spent with the strictest economy. We hold that those who regard £4 10s per week to be an excessive amount may fairly be asked: ‘Could you maintain your wife and children in decency and reasonable comfort on that sum?’ If the answer is in the affirmative then this further question suggests itself: ‘How can it be done?’ “We cannot follow you where you hold that if the salaries and wages of all employees (public aud private) were adjusted on the basis of our representations, then the cost of living would increase to such an extent that no one would be any better off than he is now. If this was a truism, then the cost of living should be much lower to-day than it was two years ago, for wages (public and private) have been reduced by approximately £4,000,000 per annum. In actual fact, the cost of living is actually higher today than it was when this huge reduction was brought into operation.

“In conclusion, I have to submit that our representations to you have always been put forward with the fullest respect to your office and courtesy to yourself. You have always encouraged us, however, to speak frankly and plainly, and we must express regret that our doing so should now lay us open to the charge of discourtesy. “In all that we have put before you we have been imbued with the desire to bp reasonable, and at the same time to effectively represent the peopl.3 who subscribe 1o the association, and we hope Hi is letter will satisfy you that the I’c t nml Telegraph Service is

fully entitled to the standard of remuneration covered by our proposals. ”