RISE FOR NURSES?

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 259, 31 July 1942, Page 6

RISE FOR NURSES?

Debate By Wellington Hospital Board

CONTRAST WITH WOMEN TRAM CONDUCTORS

A higher wage increase in lieu of the cost of living bonus for' nursing probationers than the £5 annually proposed, as well as an increase for the nurses and sisters, was sought by Mr. J. Purvis at last night’s 'Wellington Hospital Board meeting. There was a discussion into which the chairman, .Mr. F. Castle, said that a good deal of heat had been introduced.

The policy and finance committee recommended: (a) That in lieu of the cost of living bonus to members of the nursing staff, an increase of £5 per annum be granted to first, second, third and fourth-year nurses, as from the date of the court award (April 7, 1942) ; and (b) that the cost of living bonus be paid to all sections of the staff living out who are not working under awards and who are in receipt of a salary of not more than £360 per annum, exclusive of living-out allowance, .as from the date of the court order.

Mr. Purvis said the 2/- a week proposed.for probationers would not pay their tram fares. All the board’s employees working under awards got the cost of living bonus automatically. Was their service more valuable than that of the sisters and nurses? Why should the latter not be given the same benefits as award workers?

Mr. A. P. O’Shea said a good deal of lip-service was: being given to talk about a new order. Why not start by introducing a correct proportion be tween service to the community and reward? Compare the rates of pay for women tram conductors and those for nurses in relation to their respective community service and tjiey had a position which was a disgrace to the country. Dr. Welton Hogg said Wellington, as the capital city board, should take the lead. Nursing was among the worst-paid jobs; almost wage slavery. Mr. Purvis: Sixpence, an hour I Mrs. S. E. Blake said that to propose a 2/- rise was „an insult. The staff was well paid, the nurses excepted. There was always talk about no probationers coming forward. Why? Because of this sort of quibbling as to what they were entitled to. .Mr. H. F. Toogood said that nurses, no doubt for good reasons of their own, had no union or award protection, and it would be unfair to take any advantage of this. Mr. W. J. Gaudin said that the wages paid to women tram conductors could not be taken as a standard for nurses. It was said that nurses were the worst paid women in the country, but in their early training years from the age of 18 or more, they were apprentices and were paid 30/- a week and keep. The keep was worth £2, because that was the figure the board allowed to nurses living out. Woman Member’s Viewpoint. Mrs. Knox Gilmer said she recognized Mr. Purvis as a consistent battler for the nurses. She agreed with all that had been.said of their work, and that as much as possible should be done for them. However, the board ought to be sensible because it had the spending of public money in its hands. As for women tram conductors, they were doing a mauls work for patriotic reasons. Theirs was a job which led nowhere. and they worked hard and well. They were well paid, but the outsize figures quoted in the Press would probably never be (.cached by these women. If another £5 a year was paid the probationers it would bring tbeir wages to well over those paid by any other board. She suggested that some of the members, because of the presence of newspaper representatives, were expressing views for the purpose of getting publicity. Dr. Hogg rose to-a point of order. He asked if board members who had spoken in support of Mr. Purvis were to be insulted and have their motives questioned Miss A. G. Kane expressed agreement with Mrs. Gilmer. In the short period she had been on the board the nurses had received two increases.

” Replying, Mr. Castle said the main pbint was the probationers were nurses in training. During a considerable part of their working time they were attending classes. Taking these facts, they must then consider what was a reasonable emolument. It was useless to take into, account wages paid to women conductors and others engaged in wartime emergency jobs. Compared with pay of student school teachers at the training colleges, some with university degrees, the probationer nurses were probably better off. Also, they got four weeks’ annual leave on pay. Mr. Purvis’s motion that the first recommendation be referred back to the committee for further consideration was carried by nine votes to six. Those in favour were Messrs. Purvis, R. Brown, O’Shea, AV. J. Toomatli, II F. Toogood, Rev. F. J. Usher, Dr. Hogg, Mesdames S. E. Blake, E. 11. Gandy. Against were: Messrs. Castle, AV. S. Cederliolm, Gaudin, Mrs. Gilmer, Misses Kane and I. Cable. The second recommendation was also referred back.