P. & T. OFFICERS.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 May 1924, Page 1

P. & T. OFFICERS.

MINISTER’S LETTER TO

ASSOCIATION. HON J. G. COATES REVIEWS ! CLAIMS. WELLINGTON, May 3 The following correspondence has passed between the I’ostmnster-Gcn-eral and the secretary of the New Zealand Post and Telegraph Officers’ Association:— The Secretary, New Zealand Post and Telegraph Officers’ : Association, Post Office Box 517, .Wellington: Sir, 1 have to acknowledge the receipt of

your letter of the " 2fftli ' ultimo/ explaining tlie basic wage principle adopted by your Association in drawing up tlie salary scales recently proposed by your organisation. When your proposals were placed before me I understood, from what was said by your president and yourself, that because the cost of living is now 00 per cent above what it was in 191-1, the scales were drawn up so as to provide for a 00 tier cent increase over tho salaries paid in that year.

In a statement which I made to our Association several days ago, 1

endeavoured to show what the effect of your proposals would he, and I also stated that their adoption would" involve tlie expenditure for the current financial year (if approximately tf lot),000. Your letter of the 29th ultimo says that in the opinion of your Association I have ignroed the basis Association 1 have ignored the basis been worked out. Before I comment in ally way oil the basis ] should like to make it quite clear that it- appears to me that the above table shows that your proposals involve an average increase of 00 per cent over most of the salaries paid to the rank and file in 101-1, and lamat a loss to understand why such an increase is claimed. You have stated that tho Adjustment Uonimitee of 1010 laid it down that the Public Service baste wage for Iff II was 171 'LI per annum. It might he of interest to you to know that the Adjustment Coniinitlec was not aimointed until 1922, and

that it did not at any time fix a basic salary for 101-1. so far as I am aware. Tin l basic wage iias been fixed only hv the Arbitration Court. I understand that in 1919 the then Public Service Commissioner, in deciding on tho increases of salary which should ho paid for that year, made certain computations, taking the salary of LRU) as a base. Although in 1010 the Department endeavoured to grant' increases equalling those paid by tlie Public Service Commissioner, the salarv of C 1075 was not at any time ac-

cepted by the Post and Telegraph Department as a basic salary. In 1911 the minimum salary paid to a married officer or to a widower with a child or children under fourteen years of age was Cl3o, and it was until 1919 that

the minimum salary for a married officer was increased to CIS)). The minimum at present is C 209 1 As, which is !? 1 per cent above that paid in 191-1. 1 am obliged to you lor having explained so fully the basic salary principle of adjustment.

Perhaps you would make clear several points that are somewhat obscure at, present. You have said that all employees entitled to a salary above the basic wage point are entitled to a “cost-of-living increase” of £99 on 1 hoii 191-1 standard. Mould not the

adoption ol MU-li ii inim-iplo moan Hint tln* maximum ol' Class \ I Mould be--0,1110 ,C.‘U>9. 01- Cl!) aliovo the maximum ol' Class VII? Tlio question naturally arises, is not a controlling ulliror, who has qualified by examination, and has perhaps twenty years service entitled to more than £lO a hove the salary paid to a telegraphist in his eighth year of service? You

will remember that the Government s proposals provided lor a margin ol CIO between Classes VI and \ Ji. Provision nils also made for a margin ol L‘llo between.most of the classes above the rank and file of the general division. 'Would the adoption of the basic wage principle reduce the margin to CIO between three of the classes, and to CM between the rank and file and the class next above. Jn my opinion it Mould he most undesirable to have such a small margin between the classes.

It has been suggested in-your letter of the 20tli that l overlooked your intimation that if the maxima of the various classes could he fixed on the basic wage basis, the ■ determination of the various increment steps could he easily settled by negotiation. I consider that the minima of the various classes are just as important as the maxima, and if your scales are.

based, as they are said to he, ou a basic wage of .Clfio ill 11)1-1, I am at a loss to understand why a minimum of ,CGo is claimed for a message hoy, instead of Cl 9, or why llie commencing salary for an exchange attendant instead of CGI. It is also not clear to me why the minimum salary for the C lerical Division is' C y n and not CSO.

In your letior, to which this is n reply, you have relerred to the award rates for linotype operators, Aon have stated that in the seventh yeai of service a linotype operator, *2O years of age, is paid £3ll per annum. A scrutiny of the award shows the minimum rates ol pay ot operators employed on linotype machines in Hie four chief centres as being Co 5* weekly (C 273 per annum), and of those outside the four centres £5 Is weekly ({.*2(52 per annum). The en-

quiries which have been made go to show that these rates are paid to operators who have solved their apprenticeships. f venture the opinion that the rates you have quoted'are not paid throughout the ' Dominion, ' although they may lie paid ill an isolated ease. ] observe that the opera-tor-mechanics, who, in addition to operating, are responsible for the efficient running of one or more linotypes or other composing machines, arc paid £314, but' 1 should he surprised to find that youths of 20 years of ago are given such responsibilities." I note that it is the feeling of vom I organisation that the Government should ‘give a lead to all citizens in the matter of salaries and general treatment of State employees. As - I informed von recently, the schedules proposed by the Government were drawn tip to provide for salaries which compared favourably with those received by clerks and others in outside employments. 1 know of no reason why one section of employees in the Dominion should lie granted very much larger increases of salary than" ard likely to lie granted to any other section.

To sum up briefly, let me sav that it is my personal opinion that if tlie salaries and wages of all employees throughout the Dominion were brought up to the standard which you lmvo fixed upon for'officers of the Post and Telegraph Department, the cost' o' living would increase to siieli an extent that no i:ne would lie any better off than he is now. In conclusion, I desire to refer to the last paragraph of your letter, in which you protest against the “distortion of (lie facts,” and to say that on'a previous occasion, when your president alleged that 1 was "“side-stepping,” I indicated that I wished to deal with your Association in a perfectly fair and open way. and that circumstances over which I had no control ;prfcventeil' an’ earlier delivery of the expected schedules. The readiness with which your Association accuses me of “side-stepping” and “distortion of facts” cannot improve Ihe ease for the men you represent, and I would prefer if- you would observe the onlinarv courtesiesin any future communications to me. INTERVIEW WITH MINISTER. 'WELLINGTON."May A. The definite time for the pending interview between the PostmasterGeneral and the representatives of tlie P. and T. Association lias not been fixed, but it is expected that it will take place this week. Mr C. Collins. (President of the P. and T. Association), is expected to he in Wellington to-morrow.