, MR. RAIKES AND 1.111, TELEGRAPH-CLERKS.
AQUESTION of considerable interest would have been raised in the House of Commons on Tuesday, had Sir Algernon Borthwick moved his amendment to Lord Compton's motion about the telegraph-clerks. That amendment would have asked the House, "while anxious that all public servants should receive fair and adequate remuneration," to express regret at "the increasing tendency to invoke the direct interposition of Parliament between the Executive Government and the Civil Service." There are two reasons at least why we should sympathise with Sir Algernon Borthwick. The time of the House of Commons is coming to be more and more taken up by discussions similar to that raised by Lord Compton ; and the grievances of Civil Servants have at times an inconvenient result in the way of cross-voting at elections. The force of the latter reason is likely to be increasingly felt as the sense of electoral responsibility grows weaker. The notion that it is the duty of a voter to form the best conclusion he can as to the way in which, and the men by whom, he wishes the country to be governed, is giving place to an avowed subordination of considera- tions of general policy to a particular whim of the voter. Hitherto the greater tendency of Liberals to make these whims their own, has checked the disturbance which this tendency is calculated to cause. But there are signs that it will soon take equal possession of the Conservatives; and then at every election we may see questions of peace and war, of robbery and honesty, of national greatness and national decline, put aside as of no moment compared with a grievance or a craze.
It is prudent, however, to keep our sympathies so far in check as to avoid wasting them on unattainable objects, and the state of things which Sir Algernon Borthwick wishes to bring about is certainly an unattainable object. He would like to see the servants of the public forbidden to complain to their master if they think themselves hardly used by his agent. For the Executive Govern- ment, from whose decisions Sir Algernon Borthwick would permit no appeal, is not the real master of its servants ; it is only the agent to whom the real master has entrusted the exercise of his authority. A landlord who refused to see a tenant who thought himself unjustly treated by the bailiff, an employer who would listen to no remonstrance against the decisions of his foreman, would be generally thought hard ; and if the House of Commons acted on Sir Algernon Borthwick's suggestion, it would be taking up a similar position. The two conspicuous ex- ceptions to the rule of Parliamentary interference only perform the customary function of exceptions. Parliament does not interpose between the Executive Government and the military or naval service, because in those services the maintenance of discipline is the first condition of their utility, and discipline is incompatible with Parliamentary interference. Bat the Civil Service is founded, not on discipline but on contract.
Lord Compton stated the case of the telegraph-clerks with temper and moderation. They complain that they are overworked, underpaid, not promoted soon enough, and not allowed time for their meals. The second and third of these complaints do not seem to have much foundation, at least not such a foundation as Parliament can usefully take notice of. When wages are so low that a man cannot "live and thrive," it is well to move employers to raise them.
But it is not contended that the telegraph-clerks cannot live on their salaries, but only that they cannot marry on them, or, as some of them prefer to put it, "cannot perform the duties of manhood." We cannot see that the State is bound to listen to this argument, or, indeed, that it can listen to it to any good purpose. Its duty is to pay its servants what their work is worth in the market, together with so much more as will enable them to live decently. That the pay of the telegraph-clerks does not fall below this standard, may be inferred from Lord Compton's manage- ment of their case. The grievances on which he most dwelt were the disproportion between the pay of a senior clerk and a superintendent, and the time it takes a senior clerk to rise to the maximum salary of £190. Neither of these touch the case of the lower clerks, and as it would have been much easier to make a telling picture of misery caused by wages insufficient to sustain life, we may assume that it is not at the bottom of the scale that the pinch is felt. As regards the higher departments of the service, it seems impossible to regulate the pay by any other standard than the supply of clerks. The terms which the Post Office offers are well known, and as yet they have proved good enough to fill every vacancy. So long as this is the case, we do not see why the Post Office should tempt recruits with additional and unnecessary inducements. We recognise an obligation on employers not to pay starva- tion wages ; but we see no obligation on them to encourage early and probably improvident marriages. As regards promotion, Parliament is powerless. The greater part of the telegraph work can be done by junior clerks, and the whole tenor of recent reforms in the Civil Service has been to discourage the employment of senior clerks in work which is well within the ability of younger and less trained men.
Upon the other two points, Lord Compton was more successful. The rule that a day's work shall not ex- ceed eleven hours, and that two days' work shall not exceed sixteen hours, seems to be constantly broken ; and during one fortnight in 1889, the clerks—Lord Compton does not say where—worked 196 hours. They have no bank-holidays, and some amount, in some eases a large amount, of Sunday labour is obligatory. Another com- plaint is that a clerk who goes on duty at 2 in the afternoon, and remains till 10 at night, is not allowed any time for a meal. All he may do is to eat two slices of bread-and-butter between 5 and 6 p.m., without pausing in his work. To this Mr. Ritchie answers that he can see no great hardship in requiring men whose hours are from 2 to 10 p.m., to dine before they come on duty. Mr. Raikes's opinion evidently is that telegraph- clerks have a different digestive apparatus from that of other young men. Ordinarily, a luncheon which is quite as good as a telegraph-clerk's dinner, and is eaten perhaps an hour later, is not supposed to prevent a young man from being very hungry by 8 o'clock. He would feel very hardly used if he were obliged to postpone dinner till after 10; and the conditions which make young men hungry are as likely to be present in a telegraph-clerk as in any one else. Between the limits Mr. Raikes names, there is need, and there ought to be opportunity, for making a good meal. On the question of hours and overtime, Mr. Raikes fell back on the fact that a departmental committee is now sitting to consider them. No doubt, to devise a thoroughly satis- factory arrangement is a matter of some difficulty from the variableness and uncertainty of the demand made upon the Office. A great speech, an important race, an exciting accident, may double the work of the telegraph-clerks at a moment's notice. It is impossible, therefore, that times of great and unforeseen pressure should not occur, and occur frequently. But the fact of their occurrence ought to be given its full weight in settling their ordinary work. The principle of the rule which makes five hours a working-day when it follows upon one of eleven hours, is perfectly sound, and all that is needed is to extend it in accordance with the continually increasing stress to which the telegraph staff is subject. The ordinary day should be easy in propor- tion to the severity of the extraordinary day, and there should be a liberal scale of payment for overtime. De- partmental committees are sometimes used as a convenient expedient for getting rid of a troublesome subject. We hope that this will not be true of the committee to which Mr. Raikes is looking for guidance.
Previous page
