A letter from a reader.
Forest Gate.
Dear Sir,
As a regular reader of the Socialist Standard I should like to take exception to the article appearing a month or two ago on “Nationalisation,” in which the low wages of various Governmental employees were quoted.
As a Socialist, I am aware of the defects of Nationalisation, but would like to point out that though some employees of the Government do very badly, some do very well.
Under the term Government I include the Local Councils of Boroughs, etc.
In the first instance we have policemen receiving, after 10 years’ service, £4 10s. wages, plus 15/6 rent aid, for a constable ; sergeants, inspectors, etc., get more; much more in the cases of the higher ranks.
Firemen, I believe, receive the same wages, less the rent aid, as it is termed.
Teachers in the Elementary Schools appear to do very well when compared with industrial workers.
Lady Teachers commence, I believe, with £3 per week, and get somewhere about £5 a week after a few years, as one instance.
School Attendance Officers as the school board man of our school days is known, start at about £4 16s., and rise to £5 5s.
Also we have Local Government Board Officers as the clerks employed by Municipal Councils term themselves, with others such as sanitary inspectors, etc., receiving in many cases anything from £4 10s. to £7 or £8 per week, coupled with three or four weeks’ holiday.
Most of the above have no more training than a skilled mechanic is required to have, and in many cases they have considerably less, but compare the wages and conditions and they are vastly different, as you already know.
I hope I am not taking up too much of your valuable space, but I am afraid I could not state my case in less words.
In conclusion, I wish the S.P.G.B. and the Standard the best of luck in the future, and hope you will receive this letter in the spirit of helpful criticism that is intended by myself, as full facts are and must continue to be the essential feature of the S.S.
Best wishes from
“SOCIALIST.”
Reply:
Our correspondent misses the point of the article he criticises. The contention made in that article was that there is “little difference from the workers’ point of view, between State capitalism and private capitalism, whether under a Conservative or a Labour Government.”
To say, as our correspondent does, that an elementary teacher is paid more than an industrial worker, has nothing whatever to do with the question discussed. He must compare like with like; for example, compare the pay of industrial workers in the Government service with the pay of industrial workers outside. If he does he will find that our contention is correct.
But the whole question is easily settled by the statements of Civil Service authorities themselves. The Civil Service Industrial Court which fixes the pay of civil servants has laid it down when dealing with lower grade civil servants that
“the broad principle which should be followed in determining the rates of wages of Post Office servants, is that of the maintenance of a fair relativity as between their wages and those in outside industries as a whole.”
The Industrial Court takes into account the civil servant pension rights and any other benefits he may receive, and fixes his cash wage accordingly.
But whereas the Civil Service bases the pay of lower grades on the rates of pay in comparable occupations outside, the higher grades in the Civil Service are definitely paid less than the rates of pay in comparable occupations outside. This has long been a complaint of the grades concerned. In evidence given at the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (now sitting), Sir Evelyn Murray, Secretary of the Post Office, was asked if the Post Office pay as much in their higher grades as is paid outside, and replied :—
“I do not think that is a principle that the Government have ever accepted as regards the higher grades of the service.” (See Minutes of Evidence. Question 4618.)
—Editorial Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment