Civil Service Salaries.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 July 1922, Page 3

Civil Service Salaries.

— THE SECOND CUT.

STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF ASSOCIATION. WELLINGTON, July (>. In n statement regarding the salary cut, Mr F. W. Millar, general secretary of the New Zealand Public Service Association, said:— Hither the Prime Minister is ignorant of the facts, which is open to doubt, liecause full particulars of the position had been placed before him repeatedly, or he is guilty of perversion. The Association does not admit that the' increases granted in 1020 were based on the three, food groups alone, hut maintains that when the matter was discussed with the Economy Committee (.Messrs W. R. Morris, F. V. Frazer, R. W. MeVill.v, and the Acting-Secretary to the Post Office), all the groups were considered. No man lives by food fllniip nml \vl»v flip Primp Vfinist.pr

should deviate from the course followed by the Arbitration Court of including all groups can only be explained by assuming that the cost-of-living figures for the three food groups gives him some kind of excuse of making the cut announced. There is an inference in the two speeches he has made this week that the Public Service Association is not sticking to its side of the j agreement. Our reply is that even if I the Prime Minister takes tin* three fm d group figures only, the reduction would i he a breach of an understanding, the j terms of which we have put before him j on many occasions, and which he has never refuted. When the first cut was made, we sensed trouble and possible misundcr- j standing at a later stage, and on Feb- j ruary 2nd we wrote to the Prime Min-j ister as follows:—“ We ask that it shall lie established beyond doubt tba + t : •! terms of our understanding were as follows : fl) That there was to be no salary j bonus reductions unless the cost of liv-: jog had fallen 10 points. ( Note—The ! present cut to the extent of L‘ls was j due, when the cost of- living fell to ->2 j pel* cent jiliove pre-war level.) A for- j tl'cr cut should then take place only in the event of the cost of living falling to -12 per cent and tt2 per cent respectively (2) That the reduction in the cost of living should be the sole determining j factor, and that any salary bonus re- j duction should be proportionate only | to thodr op in living cost, dti The j amount of deductions to be L'ls for o'fi- I eerx receiving salaries of over CH>5 per > annum, and "CO for officers receiving , under that amount for each 10 points cost of living drop.” The Prime Minister ns evaded replying or publishing whether or not the Economy Committee confirms our statements. Me can only terminate the controversy by publishing the statement front the Economy Committee. Even if the point, bad been reached at which another cut was justified, on the Prime Minister’s own basis. C2d Is as the total reduction that should he made for officers who have received the £95 cost of living increase. Many officers did not receive the C 95 cost of living increase, and the reduction result In these eases is exemplified in the following figures. Officers drawing under L'l9o a yar received an average cost, of living mcrease of CIO: loss in the first and second cuts, £ls ; deduction percentage' 18.

Officers drawing £350 to CSOO a year received an average cost of living increase of C 75; loss in first and second cuts. MO a year; deduction percentage 40. Officers drawing £SOO to CSOO a year received an average cost of livijig increase of £75; loss in first and second cuts, CIO a year; deduction percentage s,‘t. If the Government had taken up an attitude that it was impossible for it to get the salary hill, then their attitude might linve met with some respect, hut to juggle wi*h cost of living figures and to attempt; to twist them into justification of the announced reductions, cannot hreed anything hut disgust, in the mind of ally person, pulllie servant or otherwise, who has a knowledge of the underlying facts.