RETRENCHMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1922, Page 2

RETRENCHMENT.

PUBLIC SERVANTS ANSWER[by TELEGRAPH—FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, February 6. The Public Service Association through its general secretary, has sent the following letter to the Prime Mm- “ With reference to your statement to the Press in reply to our published letter to you on the question of salary reductions, I a m directed by mv executive to point out that your statement does not set out correctly the position of this association. “It wa& never expected that you would discover a signed agreement outlining the cost of living adjustments in salaries to be made in the event of the cost of living falling, for the- ... simple reason that it has always been admitted that our understanding with the Uniformity Committee was a verbal one. The signed agreement to which you refer related solely -to the amount of increases to be granted as ; at April 1, 1920. What we now ask ! should be established beyond doubt is I whether the Uniformity Committee. j agree with this association’s claim that j the following points were agreed upon: j (1) That there was to be no sal- ! ary-bonus deduction unless the cost of (living had fallen 10 points. (Note: ! The present cut to the extent of £ls was due when the cost of living fell to 52 per cent above pre-war level,' and further cuts should then take place only in the event of the cost of living falling to 42 per cent, find 32 per cent, respectively). “(2) That , the reduction in the cost * of living should he the sole determining factor, and that any salary-bonus reductions should be proportionate only to the drop in the living cost. “(3) The amount of the deductions ; to be £ls for officers receiving salaries over £165 per annum, and £6 for officers receiving under that amount for each ten points cost of living drop. ? “If the Uniformity Committee conr firms our statements, surely the Govr, ernment will not seek to ignore such E understanding merely because it was - not in black and white. Now that the ? Public Expenditure Adjustment Act is •, on the Statute Book and provision is t J included for future cuts, it should be ? placed beyond all measure of doubt - that we state the position correctly r when we say that no further cut was s. promised us until the cost of living has t dropped another 10 points, i.e. to 42 per r cent, above pre-war level, and then only v a proportionate salary deduction to the extent of that drop. We ask the Go- - vernment to deal fairly and openly with - the Public Service (you admit that this t association has been reasonable in its e attitude) by securing and publishing a written statement from the Uniformity Committee on these points. “These are the main issues remaining g in dispute, but, in placing them before t- you we are compelled also to correct y your statement that We consented to e further cuts except under the condi-

tions outlined above, also that we agreed to the arrangement whereby the proposed second cut was put off until July next in consideration of the fact that the first cut was to start as from January 1. You also mentioned in your statement that we believed the £ls reduction was equitable. That is correct, but we wish to remind you that the Public Expenditure Adjustment Act provided for still greater reductions in many cases.”