A QUESTION OF SALARY.

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19634, 22 July 1935, Page 9

A QUESTION OF SALARY.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Regarding the assistant trafflo inspector’s salary, I cannot understand why this man’s salary should be raised to £5 per week in view of the rate being paid to skilled' artisans throughout New Zealand. Take the building trade for example: A brioklayer, carpenter, painter, electrician or plumber gets £4 11s 8d per week, after having bought, in many •cases, an expensive kit of tools and having served live or six years’ apprenticeship. Moreover, these skilled men buy their own overalls and have a lot of lost time, and yet they manage to live, though most of them are married.

When the assistant traffic inspector’s job was open to application many applied who were quite willing to take the position at the present rate of pay, so why put the borough ratepayers to unnecessary expense?—l am, etc.,

TRADESMAN.

Claudelands, July 19, 1935

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —There has been a fair amount of correspondence regarding the wages paid to the assistant traffic inspector. As a relief worker, I see no reason why he should not receive the £5 per week, but what about the many duds who are receiving £lO per week, or even more, for a much less important occupation? I think it is about time the relief workers should be more humanely treated in the shape of a like wage of £5 per week—in fact, a man with a large family is entitled to more than that. It seems easy for the Government to throw money about almost indiscriminately to hundreds of duds who under a live business man would receive walking tickets. I would like to know what are the authorities thinking about? I read a few days ago that the Government in England are to give the unemployed good wages so that the poor can live decently and be able to buy plenty of good warm clothes for themselves and families. If England can do that, what is our Government waiting for? Are they waiting for Messrs Coates and Forbes to come home with the mythical wand and trumpet to tell us they have saved the country and its people from everlasting poverty and misery, by getting old England to eat another bullock and a few lambs, and so cajole the pcpple into the belief that they, and they only, have caught the goose that lays the golden eggs. Coming back to [he rclief^worker: Instead of us having to call round to get our miserable bit of pay, why not pay the men on the job, on, say, Wednesday afternoon. Then if anyone happened to be doing a day’s work lie would not have to lose any time to collect his pay, but could continue with his work. Another thing: I do not see why •they should not bring round the relief workers’ meat, and why it should not be absolutely free, unless we arc paid standard rates of pay, so that we could buy our own, and let us live decently and not merely just exist. It was only a few months ago that the magistrates petitioned Parliament to get their salaries raised to £9OO per year without deductions, as they staled they wanted to live decently and pay their way, as being lied to their court work they could not, engage in any oilier lucrative business. Great Scott! How many families live, or exist, as they do, on about 00s per week? Asking for £9OO per year was outstanding impudence—any reasonable man would have been ashamed to ask for such a salary, under the circumstances. Nuff sett! —I am, etc., W. .IAKYIS. , Frankton, July IS, J 935