SALARY CUT

Taranaki Daily News, 14 June 1922, Page 5

SALARY CUT

CIVIL SERVANTS’ PROTEST. MEETING AT NEW PLYMOUTH. SOME BREEZY PASSAGES. A representative gathering of over 200 public servants was held in St. Andrew’s Hall, New Plymouth, last night with the object of passing a resolution prevailing upon the Government to postpone the second cut in salaries which is proposed to be made as from July 1 next. The Mayor (Mr. F. E. Wilson) presided, there being also on the platform the following membeis of Parliament: Messrs. S. G. Smith (Taranaki), R. Masters (Stratford), 0. J. Hawken (Egmont), and E. Dixon (Patea). Mr. W. H. G. Brown (Post and Telegraph Department), before moving the formal resolution of protest, explained the position, dealing first with the cost of living, which, he said, was the hardest problem the Government of any country had to deal with, and he recognised that in dealing with it the community must suffer. It was impossible for the cost of living to come down unless wages likewise fell. The keynote of the meeting, however, was that the cost of living was slightly increasing, even though wages were coming down. The position, the speaker considered, had to be discussed with a sane mind, and the meeting that night was being held with a sincere purpose. The Minister of Finance had concluded that the price of meat and butter —of everything was coming down “whack.” But the price of staple foods was going up, and it was with the object of pointing this out and showing how inequitable a further cut would be that resolutions were being passed by civil servants throughout the country. A reduction of 6s per week had been made as from January 1 last. This reduction was out of all proportion, but the efforts to have it reduced had failed. Since then the Arbitration Court, after full consideration and with indisputable figures to base their calculations on, had in May last decided that general workers should be reduced only 5s per week as from May 14. The anomaly between the two positions was outstanding.

APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC. Therefore the public servants wanted to develop a persuasive force to convince the Minister that, at the very least, the amount of the reduction :n civil servants’ salaries needed re-consid-eration. Another cut of 6s per week, proposed to be made in July, would place civil servants on a very unfair basis as compared with other workers. It was all a question of pocket. A man with a family to keep found at the end of the month that all his salary had been eaten up; he could not keep his revenue within his expenditure. The civil servants were not to say where taxation should be reduced, but they did say they were not to be penalised by special taxation. They had had their ordinary taxes to pay, and were suffering besides this special taxation. The motion to be put before the meeting was a moderate one and presented in a humble way. It was ths intention of the civil servants to appeal to the public individually and collectively through their local bodies, Chambers of Commerce, borough councils, etc. The public had a perfect right to be served by the fittest service procurable, but the public service also had a right that entitled them to be placed in a decent position beyond the reach of poverty. The time had arisen to appeal to every tribunal in New Zealand, and if the public should not assist a sane, intelligent and loyal body of workers, it was a very serious position for the country. Mr. Brown then moved th 2 following motion: “That this meeting, representative of all branches of the public service, recognising the real interest the public has in the effi-: cient performance of their duty by public servants, and the necessity for maintaining efficiency, appeals to the public individually, collectively, and through all associations, etc., at their disposal, to prevail upon the Government to postpone the second cut in salaries as from July 1 on the following grounds: (a) We have a legitimate grievance in the outstanding anomaly created by the recent Arbitration Court decision whereby general workers are subject to 5s per week reduction, against public servants reduction of at least 6s per week in first cut alone; (b) whereas reduction under the Arbitration Court became effective from May 15,. 1922, the public service reduction became effective from January 1, 1922; (c) that, contrary to the anticipation of the Finance Minister, the latest figures of the Government Statistician clearly indicate an increase in the cost of essential food groups, and any further reduction in salaries will aggravate the extreme hardships at present experienced. Further, we submit that the public, and the Government, intended that an efficient public service should be entitled to a decent subsistence, which would place them beyond the temptations of poverty.”

THE COST OF LIVING. Mr. Guthrie, of the Railway Officers’ Institute, seconded, saying that civil servants were not fighting against a reduction of salaries, but they wanted that reduction to be in accordance with the cost of living. The speaker said that house rent was now 30s to £2 a week, a suit cost £lO, and a. pair of boots £2 10s, the increase on 1914 prices being between 50 and 100 per cent. The reduction in salaries he considered most inequitable, and with the help of the public and members of Parliament he hoped the cut would be reduced.

In supporting the motion, Mr. J. Gillick remarked that if the same loyalty, uniformity and solidity had been shown when the Public Expenditure Adjustment Bill was before the House redress of their grievances might have been obtained then. * Dealing with the cost of living bonus, the speaker said the Prime Minister had said this . amounted to £9O per annum; this was absolutely contrary to fact. The first grant of £4O was never intended as a cost of living bonus; it was an increment in salary due to re-classification in 1918, and made effective from April 1, 1919, as the outcome of long representations by the service. Only the £5O bonus, given in June, 1920, and madfe effective from April 1 of that year, was for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of living. He said industrial workers had their position reviewed periodically, but the civil servants had to meet the rise in the cost of living without an increase in salaries. The Prime Minister had given them to understand that he would review their position

every six months and make an adjustment according to the fluctuations in the cost of living. Mr. Hawken here interjected that it was no use insinuating in this way. The Prime Minister was not present, and it was not fair to him or Mr. Dixon and the speaker, as members of his Government, to make such remarks, and he accbrdingly asked the speaker to refrain from that line of talk. Mr. Gillick: “Our friend Mr. Hawken will have an opportunity to discuss his case later in the evening.” Continuing, Mr. Gillick urged that the Government should be asked to postpone the second cut till a time when the cost of living was considerably lower than what it was at present. Dealing with the rent question, the speaker said that public servants were liable to periodic transfers throughout the country, and therefore did not as a rule purchase homes of their own. Even if a transfer meant an addition in salary of £5O ■it was frequently found that the difference in rent was as much as £76 per year. He maintained that the Government should therefore be asked to make no cut till the Arbitration Court said such was justified. Mr. Ewart asked if it was advisable to make any further reduction in salaries, looking at things from the Prime Minister’s point o-f view. Mr. Massey said we needed to encourage optimism. The best way to do this was to leave the civil servants alone. (Laughter.) M.P. OPPOSES CUT. Mr. S. G. Smith, M.P., said the action of the Government in reducing the salaries of public officers was not justified, and referred to the ten per cent, rebate on land tax, which he said was only justified on the assumption that the Government was hard up and required money immediately. He believed the whole question had not been gone into thoroughly. He would oppose any further reductions in salaries below £350 if he got the opportunity nu a member of Parliament. The Prime Minister could not reduce salaries as from July 1 without notice being given through the Gazette and. without consulting the judge of the Arbitration Court. He sincerely hoped the Prim Minister would give’ the matter the fullest consideration, so that the children of civil servants could be provided with the necessities of life and enough to meet contingencies. The Government had repudiated the agreement with the public service, but the position could not be met by passing wild resolutions and by direct action, but by getting public opinion behind them. Publie servants should be allowed to come under the Disputes Investigation Act, when both sides would have an opportunity of stating their case, and an equitable decision given. It was not in the interests of the country to have a discontented public service, but this could not be otherwise unless the policy of pin-pricking, cutting down wages, and utilising boy and girl labor for work which should be done by men and women, was discontinued.

'‘No politician takes pride or pleasure in voting for a reduction in salaries, but when it came to the point he had to do his duty to the country,” said Mr. O. J. Hawken, M.P; Such an extreme step had not been taken by a Government for thirty years, and the civil servants might rest assured that the Government had not taken this action without careful thought. Any Government that had taken such a step .before had gone out. A voice: You’re going out-, too. Mr. Hawken admitted the service had put their case ably, but they must remember they were not the only service in New Zealand. There were other people, and these formed the great bulk of the laboring section of the bommunity, who were outside the service and outside the unions. The higher the public service wages tho lower would be the wages of these people, the speaker instancing the case of farm laborers, which, he said, were down to the pre-war rate of wages, and why? A voice: Because of unemployment. Mr. Hawken: Yes, and what caused unemployment ? Voice: The immigrants. Interjections were becoming very frequent, and it was with difficulty Mr. Hawken could make himself heard, the chairman finally making a stern appeal for order. “FACE THE MUSIC.” Dealing with the case of the railways, Mr. Hawken said the Government had two alternatives, either to reduce wages or to reduce the staff. He was sure they all preferred the former course. The employer everywhere had to tackle his labor bill first. It was best that everyone should “face the music.” for the country could not pay more money than it earned. There was to-day not sufficient working capital to carry on. The Bill had caused heartburning, but it was a necessary measure, and frankly he did not see any improvement in the earning power of the country, although he hoped we had touched the bottom. A voice: Primary products have gone up. Mr. Hawken replied that wool was worth now little more than half its pre-war price, though it was certainly going up. Butter factories were paying out only half what they did last year —in fact, there was really no improvement in the position. A voice: Mr. Massey tells us the outlook is bright. Mr. Hawken said Mr. Massey took a sound view. It was not his policy w cry “stinking fish”; he had to keep up the credit of the country. There were tremendous difficulties in the country districts to-day, and men were writing off thousands every day. If he thought the circumstances warranted it he would be only too willing to ask that the position should, be revised, but he did not see the alteration the public, vice professed to see. Dealing with the immigration question, Mr. Hawken said immigrants were arriving at the right time, as they would grow up with the .country. A voice: The Government are bringing immigrants to keep the wages down.

Other noisy interruptions came from the back of the hall, whereupon the chairman gave a reminder that the general election was not now on, and called for a fair hearing. Mr. Hawken shortly after concluded. Mr. R. Masters, M.P., referring to Mr. Hawken’s speech, said he had yet to learn the fact that employees getting high wages affected the price of produce on the London market. The higher the worker’s wage, he said, the better it was for the farmer. He deprecated the Government’s attitude over the Economies Commission’s report, and explained his attitude in reference to the Public Expenditure Adjustment Bilk which he had voted against on tho third reading. In reference to the salary cut, he considered the Government 'had not given the mature consideration ■such a reform warranted. The cut, ho ■considered, should be based on the system used in connection with income tax whereby the lower salaried men

•were not penalised more than the higher salaried men. Mr. E. Dixon, M.P., expressed himself as sympathetic towards the public service, and he believed in a well-pay! public service. The Prime Minister, he considered, was to be admired for the bold position he had taken up. The speaker said he was not prepared to fight to the last ditch to prevent the cut. There was a great number of men out of work, and the whole community should help bear the burden. Mr. Dixon said he knew farmers who would be only too willing to change positions in order to get a sure salary week by week and be in regular employment. The speaker had hoped that after the first cut had been made the position of the country would improve. A voice: It has. Mr. Massey said so. Mr. Dixon: “I’m glad you're such a strong supporter of Mr. Massey.” Mr. Massey, he said, was a man to feel proud of. He was an optimist. A voice: An octopus? (Loud laughter.) Mr. Dixon, after the laughter had subsided, asked what man, on the eve of an election, would suggest a cut which would alienate hundreds of of thousands of supporters unless he thought the step necessary. The speaker said he had voted for the Bill, as he believed the time had come when retrenchment, from top to bottom, was •necessary. Where was the money coming from if the cut were not made? Could they tax land any more, or the farmer, or the business man? A voice: Tax the profiteer. “Talk sense,” retorted Mr. Dixon, who said the Government had two alternatives, to reduce wages or to reduce the number of civil servants. Although they might not like the cut, they were fortunate men to have permanent employment in these days. The motion before the meeting was then put and carried unanimously.