Vol. 59 No. 2
Deputy Norton gave notice yesterday that he would raise a question on the adjournment to-night arising out of the reply to Question 28 on yesterday's Order Paper. The question was as follows:—
To ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs whether he is now in a position to announce a decision of the claim for increased wages submitted to him by the Post Office Workers' Union in September, 1934.
I put my question to the Minister yesterday in the hope that, after 13 months' cogitation, the Minister would be able to indicate what decision he proposes to communicate on the claim submitted to him. It may be necessary to remind the Minister of the events which preceded the submission of that question. In September, 1934, the claim was submitted to the Minister. In November, 1934, he said it was being examined. In December, 1934, he said he was hoping to have a discussion with the. Union early in the New Year. In January, 1935, he said it was deemed advisable to have consultations with the Department of Finance before carrying the matter further. In April, 1935—seven months after the claim was submitted—a discussion took place between the representatives of the Union and representatives of the Minister. As I have said, the Minister had then had the claim under consideration for seven months, and most people would believe that a claim that was under consideration for seven months could be decided without further delay. However, that is not so in the case of the Post Office. After questions had been addressed to him between April, 1935, and June, 1935, the Minister eventually—on the 27th June, last—stated that he hoped to be in a position to announce a definite decision on the claim by the end of July. I am sure the Minister is sufficiently familiar, with the phraseology used by his Department and other public departments to realise that, when he stated in that letter that he hoped to be in a position to announce a definite decision on the matter by the end of July, he was perfectly convinced in his own mind that a decision would not be delayed beyond that date.
I should be surprised if the Minister would contend that the hope expressed in that letter was a lightly-expressed hope, or that he had any doubt that he would be able to fulfil the hope so expressed. That was in June, 1935; and there was then every indication that a letter written in such specific terms and, I presume, after a very considerable consultation, would be ultimately implemented by taking a decision on the claim at the end of July. The end of July came and passed. On the 19th of August, the Minister was reminded that it was then three weeks since the promised decision was to be arrived at. On the following, day the, Minister indicated that the hope expressed in his letter of the 27th June, in regard to the decision on the wage claim, had not owing to unforeseen circumstances, been realised; but the Department, he added, fully realised the desirability of an early decision and was making every effort towards that end.
That was on the 20th August. The Minister was further pressed to communicate the decision to the Union, but up to the 13th September no decision was received from him. It will be clear, I think, from what I said, that not only had the Post Office Department accepted the claim in September, 1934, and examined it between September, 1934 and June, 1935, and not only did they promise a decision in June this year, and further reiterated that promise in August this year, but that never once during that whole period of nine months did the Minister or the Department make any single reference to the fact that the decision on the claim was in any way related to the Civil Service Commission of Inquiry. Never once was it suggested that the Report of the Civil Service Inquiry had any bearing on the decision. The Department had accepted the claim, negotiations had gone on on the claim, and a promise of a decision had been given, but never once did they say that the acceptance of the claim, the negotiations in connection with the claim, or the promise of a decision upon the claim was, in any way, contingent on the receipt by the Government or the Post Office Department of the Report of the Civil Service Commission of Inquiry. Never once during all that period was even the existence of the Commission of Inquiry referred to on a single occasion. Never was it even hinted that the existence of the Commission or its deliberations in any way affected the decision or the Minister's promise in connection with the wage claim. In any case, there was no reason why the existence of the Commission or its deliberations or inquiries should affect the claim for the increased wage submitted on behalf of the Post Office staff.
The Minister is well aware that the Post Office staff, as represented by the Post Office Workers' Union, did not give evidence before the Commission, and he is aware of the circumstances that induced them not to give evidence before the Commission. In view of the fact that the Minister know that the Post Office Union had not submitted their case to the Commission for Inquiry, and in view of the fact that in seven months he never said the existence of the Commission of Inquiry was in any way related to the wage claim, I think the dragging in of the report of the Commission at this stage is nothing but the very flimsiest excuse to delay a decision being come to on the Union claim. It is nothing but a dodge on the part of the Government to connect the report of the Commission of Inquiry with the claim of the Post Office staff. It was only on the 14th September that the Minister realised that the Commission of Inquiry was in existence at all. On that day he wrote to the Union saying that it had been ascertained that the Commission of Inquiry into the Civil Service claims was on the point of reporting, and that it was decided to postpone the further consideration of the wage claim until the report was received and examined. Whatever justification, if there could be any justification, for a letter of that kind when the claim was first submitted, there was no justification whatever for sending a letter of that kind to the Post Office Union exactly 12 months after their claim was submitted. The Minister might have some pretence for saying that he was awaiting the report of the Commission if he had indicated at the beginning that there could be no decision until the Commission of Inquiry had reported. Never once did he indicate that the decision of the Commission of Inquiry, or its deliberations, or terms of reference had relation to the claim. Never once was it even hinted that any delay would be caused merely by the existence of the Commission of Inquiry. The whole plea for the delay was that the claim was a comprehensive one, of considerable complexity and of considerable magnitude. When the comprehensive character and the complex character and the magnitude of the claim had been exhausted, as an excuse for delaying the decision, the Minister then said that the reason why the decision cannot now be given is that the Commission of Inquiry is on the point of reporting.
I believe, and thousands of members of the Post Office staff believe, that the production at this late stage of the Civil Service Commission of Inquiry as a cause for the delay is just a subterfuge, and I am sorry to say a mean subterfuge, for delaying a decision upon this matter. The Minister ought to be aware of the fact that there is need of a speedy decision, and that after 13 months of consideration the decision ought now to be announced. He should be aware of the fact that there is need, not merely for a speedy decision, but for a favourable decision. Over three thousand members of the Post Office staff have a rate of wages not exceeding 25/- per week. Over 4,000 members of the staff, or more than half of the entire staff, have a rate of wages not exceeding 30/- a week; and even in the case of those whose wage rates exceed those I have just mentioned, they are constantly faced with the problem of trying to make ends meet on a miserably low rate of wages with the low maximum that is the lot of every worker in the Post Office.
The Post Office Department is a great public Department; it administers a great and vital social service; it is the one Department that intimately touches the every-day lives of the community, of those engaged in trade, industry and commerce. It seems to me nothing short of a shame, and a standing disgrace, that so great a public service should be nothing more, from the standpoint of the rate of wages paid, than simply a gigantic sweat shop where members of the staff are working at rates of wages that would be disgraceful if paid even by the most greedy and unscrupulous employer. To-day there is more need than ever for a substantial increase on these wage rates. They are lower to-day than at any time in the past 18 years. It should only be necessary to remind the Minister of the enormous reductions they have suffered in order to bring home to him the need for a speedy decision. If I mention that a person who had a wage of £4 12s. 9d. in 1921, has now been reduced to a wage of £2 14s. 3d. the Minister will have some appreciation of the gigantic sacrifice which the Post Office staffs have already suffered in respect of cuts in their wages.
The Post Office Department boasts that at one time it was losing well over £1,000,000 per year, and that now for the third year in succession it is yielding a surplus, this year to the extent of £35,000. If the prognostications of the Minister are to be realised, next year the surplus will be greater, and probably for the following year it will be even still greater. If the Minister will look at the Public Estimates for 1922-23 and compare them with the Public Estimates for this year, we find that that surplus of £35,000 has been made only by cutting the wages of the Post Office staff, and that they and their wages and their conveniences have been sacrificed in order to wipe out a large portion of the deficit on the Post Office which existed in 1922-23. The Post Office ought to be ashamed to make a profit while its staff are paid such miserably low wages, and it owes an abject apology for every penny profit which it makes while its staff are underpaid, and many of them under-clad and under-fed. That is a state of affairs in which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs can find little consolation. That is a state of affairs in which the Executive Council should find no cause for consolation or for complacency. There is a crying need for a substantial increase in the wages of the Post Office staff.
I am sure the Minister, from his experience and knowledge of the staff, and from his knowledge of their wage rates, must be aware that the rates of wages which they are being paid are rates of wages which do not justify the State in claiming that it is a model employer. Far from being a model employer in the Post Office Department the State is a sweated employer, and the rates of wages which it pays there compare most unfavourably with those paid in many outside industries. Abundant evidence to prove that contention has already been submitted by the Post Office Workers' Union to the Minister's own Department.
The claim has now been under consideration for thirteen months. There can be no valid excuse for any further delay. The Civil Service Commission of Inquiry is only a flimsy excuse to delay a decision on the matter. In view of the fact that that question was never raised until the claim had been under consideration for twelve months, I suggest that in all fairness and in all decency the Post Office Department, through the Minister, should communicate a decision on the wage claim. At all events, notwithstanding any apology or attempt at explanation which may be made, I regard the Minister's letter of the 27th June last as indicating that a definite decision would be convoyed to the Union before the end of July. In view of the fact that he has had the claim for 13 months, in view of the letter written to the Union on the 27th last, and in view of the fact that there was no question whatever of the existence of the Commission being in any way related to the decision on the claim, I hope that the Minister will now, without further delay, announce a decision on the claim. After thirteen months the staff cannot be accused of any impetuosity or any impatience. They have borne this delay with considerable patience, but there is a wave of discontent and a wave of dissatisfaction permeating the Post Office service at the delay in communicating a decision on their claim. The Minister can allay that discontent and allay that dissatisfaction by giving a speedy and favourable decision on the claim. I now want to give the Minister an opportunity of replying in the time that is available.
Deputy Norton complains in the first instance of the length of time which the Department has taken in considering the claim of his Union. He points out that it is thirteen months since the claim was made. He knows very well that it was an almost unprecedented claim. He was not at all serious in presenting it.
That is not so.
I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that when he was upholding the claim in this House he took the extreme case. He based his claim entirely on the rates of wages paid to the worst-paid part of the service, that is, the auxiliary postmen who work part-time, forgetting altogether, or at least not reminding the House of the fact, that the claim embraced several classes who, in the present circumstances of the world, cannot be regarded, from the nature of their employment, as being, as he says, employed in a gigantic sweat-shop, and paid in a way that would bring shame even to a greedy and unscrupulous employer. I think, as he has got so much publicity for his side of the story, it is time that the actual claim itself should be made known to the House. The claim has been made on behalf of several grades. It starts with Post Office assistants, Grade A. Those are divided, according to the class of office to which they belong, into Grades 1, 2 and 3. I want to give the average rate of pay of those grades. In Class I offices there are 158 Grade A male assistants. The average pay of those officials is 71/10 per week, and it is sought to increase that to 89/5, which would mean an increase of £7,246 per annum. In Class II offices there are 67 officers concerned. Their present average wage is 66/10, and the claim is for 84/5, which would mean an additional annual cost of £3,073. In Class III offices there are 133 officials. They are at present paid an average wage of 61/10, and the claim is for 79/4, involving an increased cost of £6,072 per annum.
In regard to female assistants, Grade A, there are 20 officers in the first-class offices, and their present average pay is 57/5 per week. The claim is for 77/6, involving an additional cost of £1,058 per annum. In Class II offices there are 10 officials, who receive an average wage of 54/8 per week. The claim is for 73/1, which would mean an increased cost of £481 per annum. In Class III offices there are 69 officers. Their average rate of wages is 51/2. The claim is for 69/8, involving an increased annual cost of £3,330. We now come to the Grade B male Post Office assistants. There are 106 officers in the Class I offices. They are at present, receiving 66/2 per week. The amount claimed is 89/5, which would amount to an additional £6,428 per annum. In Class II offices there are 42 officials. Their present average rate is 61/10. The claim is for 84/5, and the additional cost involved amounts to £2,473 per annum. In Class III offices there are 194 assistants, whose present average wage is 57/5. The claim is for 79/4, and the additional cost involved amounts to £11,090. In regard to Grade B female assistants, there are 51 officials in the Class I offices. Their present average wages amount to 52/9 per week. The claim is for 77/6, and the additional annual cost involved is £3,293. In Class II offices there are 24 officers. Their present average wages amount to 49/8. The amount claimed is 73/1, and the additional cost involved is £1,466. In Class III offices there are 177 officers. Their present average rate of wages is 46/6. The amount claimed is 69/8, amounting to an additional annual cost of £10,696. All those figures, of course, include cost-of-living bonus.
In regard to postmen, Grade A, there arc 217 officers in the Class I offices. Their average wages amount to 56/10. The claim is for 75/-, which would mean an increased annual cost of £10,282.
In Class II offices there are 34 officers, weekly wage 52/4, and the claim is for 69/-, meaning an increase of £1,479 per annum; in Class III offices there are 61 officers, weekly wage 48/10, the claim is for 65/2, which would mean an increase of £2,599 per annum; Postmen, Grade B, 476 officers, average weekly wage 51/2, the claim is for 66/2, which would mean an increase of £18,624 per annum; in second-class offices there are 152 officers, weekly wage 46/6, the claim is for 61/2, which would mean an increase of £5,814 per annum; in Grade III offices there are 1,127 postmen, weekly wage 43/5, the claim is for 58/8, which would mean an increase of £44,826 per annum. Of telephonists in Class I offices there are 127, weekly wage 46/6, the claim is for 60/7, which would mean an increase of £4,664 per annum; in Class II offices there are 53 officers, weekly wage 44/3, the claim is for 58/1, representing an increase of £1,912 per annum; in Class III offices there are 56 officers, weekly wage 41/11, the claim is for 55/6, representing an annual increase of £1,983. These are the best paid officers. I have not time to go over the whole list. Coming to lower paid people, I will not have time to reply to points dealing with the skilled workmen class.
These are all the permanent classes I am referring to and I will have to skip over some of them. There are 278 skilled workmen in Class II offices whose average wage is 58/1 for the lowest class in that grade. The claim is for 66/10, which would represent an annual increase of £6,345. The total increase for whole-time staff would mean an extra £170,706 per annum. Then we have the part-time people. Part-time telephonists are paid by the hour. In Class I offices they receive 10½d. per hour, and the claim is that they should receive 1/2¾; in Class II offices they are paid 10d. an hour and they are claiming 1/2. Part-time telephone learners are paid by the hour. Then we have the poorest paid people, that Deputy Norton always makes most of when he raises this matter. In Class I offices there are 44 auxiliary postmen paid 11½d. per hour. The claim is for 1/5¾ which would mean an increase of £1,692 per annum; in Class II offices there are 34 auxiliary postmen paid 10¾d. an hour, and the claim is for 1/3½, which would mean an increase of £807 per annum. There are 2,536 auxiliary postmen in Class III offices paid 10d. per hour. The claim is for 1/2¾ per hour which would represent an increase of £62,343 for that class.
The allowance deliverers are the lowest paid class but they work the least time. In Class I offices there are none, but where they would be at work there is a claim, for 1/5¾ an hour. In Class II offices there is one allowance deliverer paid 9¼d. per hour, and the claim is for 1/3½. In Class III offices where practically all these people are employed there are 973 of them paid 9½d. an hour while the claim is for 1/2¾, which would mean an annual increase of £17,451. In all, the claims would amount to £263,817. I told Deputy Norton when the Estimate for my Department was before the House that I was not prepared in the present state of depression, not only in this country but all over the world, to ask the Minister for Finance to tax the people in that amount. I am not prepared to do it while other people are paid so much less. As to Deputy Norton's complaint about delay and that we brought in reference to the Commission of Inquiry at the last moment, and that that was absent from the mind of the Government all the time because his Union saw fit to flout that Commission, I know undoubtedly that Deputy Norton's Union represents the majority of the workers, but other organisations in connection with the Post Office gave evidence before the Commission. When the Department wrote the letter in June last it was hoped that a decision would be given any time at the end of July. I frankly admit that I thought there would be a decision.
I should remind Deputy Norton that in these matters two Departments are concerned. The Department responsible for the raising of finance is the Department of Finance, and its opinion has to be taken into consideration. It was hoped that the Commission of Inquiry into the Civil Service would have reported at an earlier date. There were reasons why it did not, so that it did not require specific mention. I do not say that Deputy Norton is entitled to say that we ignored the fact that at the time the wages claim was put in a committee was inquiring into this. When the Department of Finance, which is the Department responsible for wages and conditions in the Civil Service, learned that the Commission was about to conclude and report, they decided—and I agreed with the Minister for Finance when he put it to me—that as they would have the advantage of their deliberations we ought to agree to await that report, especially as we were informed—and I think Deputy Norton knows this—that they were about to report. Consequently we are awaiting the report of that Commission. What the decision is going to be is another matter. I indicated to Deputy Norton what we proposed to do. I repeat what I said during the debate on the Estimate for my Department, that in the present state of the country, and having regard to the depressed state of this and other countries in the world, I am not prepared to ask the Government to impose taxation to the extent demanded in this claim. I certainly hope that we will soon have the report of this Commission. I understand that we are to have it soon. Deputy Norton may be able to hurry it up, because there arc representatives of Labour on the Commission. We cannot induce the Commission to present its report any quicker than it is going to do so.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6th.
