HOME-SERVICE MEN

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 102, 23 January 1918, Page 6

HOME-SERVICE MEN

Sir,—Your article of this morning's paper (Friday, January 18), under tlio heading "Home Servico Men, Question of Separrrt.ion Allowance," 1 read with some surprise, and seeing your information evidently came from the Defence Headquarters, I would like to state the men's view of the case. In the first place tho article in question is absolutely misleading to the general public, and tho whole thing from start to iinisli is a complete sidestep en the part of tho Defence authorities. You state the home-service men are all volunteers. Granted. Because these men volunteor to assist their country, some, by the way, as far back as two and a haif years ago, and were then only drawing 4s. per day for the first month and getting no separation allowance for wife or child, they are not to participate in the good things that come the conscript's way. You also state the home-service man is not called upon to risk life and limb. Now, sir, what about the man who has risked all, and has joined up with tho home service, so as he can still do a little bit for his country ? The Defence people may as well, say what they think—"Mora fool him to do so." Then, again, what about some of the men m the Medical Corps? These men are handling infectious and contagious diseases, working twelve hours per day, Sunday included, all for the magnificent sum of os. per day, plus wife's allowance, Is. per day, and child's allowance f Jd., and if living out of camp 2s. per day ration allowance, and never knowing what, disease they may carry home to their wives and children.,' A* for the risks these men- take, if you look up hospital records you will find that several of the Medical Corps men have died through contracting infectious and; contagious diseases while doing their duty.

Again, there are tho men who 'clean out the drainage tanks, septic tanks, drains, eto. Any person with a grain of common sense can see that this work is exceedingly dangerous, apart from being highly unpleasant. I may venture to say men doing such work outside could command las. to £1 per day, and be underpaid at that. The Defence Department clairii that they clothe, the men, but thoy forget to mention that tho men have to pay them os. every time they want their boots mended, and that the men have to pay for all repairs and alterations to their clothes.

Your statement of 4s. per day messing and ration allowance is absolutely wrong, so far as the men in Featherston and Trentham camps arc concerned. The allowance is 25., not 4s. as you state, and I think I am quite safo in saying there is not a private or N.G'.O. in the whole of the two camps who is getting more than '2s. ration allowance. The home service men in the towns are getting 4s. per day ration allowance, as under:—Ordnance pay—Private, os. per day; wife's allowance, Is. per day; one chiid, 9d. per day; lodging and ration allowance, 4s. per day; total, 10s. 9d. per day. Another example: Private's pay, ss. per day; wife's allowance, Is. per day; one chiid, 9d. per day; clerical pay, 2s. per day; lodging and ration allowance, 4s. per day; total, 12s. 9d. per day. Why these men should re-* eeive 4s. per day lodging and ration allowance and men in the. camps only 2s. per day. is a mystery, considering rents, etc., are cheaper in the ,towns than in Trentham and Featherstou. A private who is working in the camps and living outside receives the following:—Pay, ss. per day; wife's allowance, Is. per day; one child's allowance, 9d. per day; ration allowance, 2s. per day; total, Bs. 9d. per day. Out of this lie lias to pay 255. per week for one room for wife and child and himself. Of course, this room is supposed to he furnished, and he can have the use of the kitchen. Then again, the two most expensive articles of food, meat and butter, cannot be bought at the camp, and he has to pay a higher rate for these essential articles thp.it he would have to pay in Wellington.

The Defence authorities are trying to •mpress upon the public that all homeservico men are receiving 4s. per day ration and lodging allowance, -whereas only a handful of the favoured few receive this 4s. per day. The private who cannot rjet a loom or house in Trentham or Featherston, and has his wife in Wellington or some other_ town, does not get this 2s. allowance," therefore his wages, including wife and child's allowance, is 6s. 9d. per day. Again, you. state that it must be remembered that home-service privates are performing unskilled work. Now, sir, it would be much nearer the mark if you had said, "A few of the privates." Thero are downs of men in the camps as privates, working at their own trades, who cannot get commissions,' stripes, or even extra duty nay, as suggested in your article. Trusting I am not taking up too much of your valuable "lace.—T am, etc., ONE WHO KNOWS. January 18.

[We are informed that the ration allowance is 4s. a day except in the cases of home-service men who are drawing certain rations at the camps. The- point raised by the Defence authorities is that they do not need married men in home service, since the limited number of places available can all bo filled by First Division men. Married men who have undertaken home service, havo done so as volunteers, and may seek other employment if they wish to do so. Home-service men who are doing skilled work, such as boot-making and carpentering, receive extra duty pay. A married luimeservice private who receives Bs. fid. a day, plus uniform arid certain rations, for the support of himself and one child, is reasonably well naid according to civilian standards. The pay is £3 Is. 3d. a week, and it runs for 52 weeks in the year.]