[CHAPTER IX]
The Post Office Employees press the House of Commons for
Increases of Wages and Salaries
British Government’s policy as to wages and salaries for
routine work, as distinguished from work requiring a high
order of intelligence. The Fawcett revision of wages, 1881.
Lord Frederick Cavendish, Financial Secretary to the Treasury,
on pressure exerted on Members of Parliament by the telegraph
employees. Sir S. A. Blackwood, Permanent Secretary to the
Post Office, on the Fawcett revision of 1881. Evidence as to
civil servants’ pressure on Members of Parliament presented
to the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments,
1888. The Raikes revision of 1890-91; based largely on the
Report of the Committee on the Indoor Staff, which Committee
had recommended increases in order “to end agitation.” The
Earl Compton, M. P., champions the cause of the postal
employees in 1890; and moves for a Select Committee in 1891.
Sir James Fergusson, Postmaster General in the Salisbury
Ministry, issues an order against Post Office servants
“endeavoring to extract promises from any candidate for
election to the House of Commons with reference to their
pay or duties.” The Gladstone Ministry rescinds Sir James
Fergusson’s order. Mr. Macdonald’s Motion, in 1893, for a
House of Commons Select Committee. Mr. Kearley’s Motion, in
1895. The Government compromises, and appoints the so-called
Tweedmouth Inter-Departmental Committee.
The Government accepts all recommendations made by
the Committee. Sir Albert K. Rollit, one of the principal
champions in the House of Commons of the postal employees,
immediately follows with a Motion “intended to reflect
upon the Report of the Tweedmouth Committee.” Mr. Hanbury,
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, intimates that it
may become necessary to disfranchise the civil servants.
The Treasury accepts the recommendations of the so-called
Norfolk-Hanbury Committee. The average of expenses on account
of wages and salaries rises from 11.54 cents per telegram
in 1895-96, to 13.02 cents in 1902-03, concomitantly with
an increase in the number of telegrams from 79,423,000 to
92,471,000.
[CHAPTER XI]
The Post Office Employees continue to press the House of
Commons for Increases of Wages and Salaries
The Post Office employees demand “a new judgment
on the old facts.” Mr. S. Woods’ Motion, in February, 1898.
Mr. Steadman’s Motions in February and June, 1899. Mr.
Hanbury, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, points out that
the postal employees are demanding a House of Commons Select
Committee because under such a Committee “the agitation and
pressure, now distributed over the whole House, would be
focussed and concentrated upon the Select Committee.” Mr.
Steadman’s Motion, in April, 1900. Mr. Bayley’s Motion, in
June, 1901. Mr. Balfour, Prime Minister, confesses that the
debate has filled him “with considerable anxiety as to the
future of the public service if pressure of the kind which
has been put upon the Government to-night is persisted in
by the House.” Captain Norton’s Motion, in April, 1902. The
Government compromises by appointing the Bradford Committee
of business men. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Postmaster General,
states that Members from both sides of the House “seek from
him, in his position as Postmaster General, protection for
them in the discharge of their public duties against the
pressure sought to be put upon them by employees of the Post
Office.” He adds: “Even if the machinery by which our Select
Committees are appointed were such as would enable us to
secure a Select Committee composed of thoroughly impartial
men who had committed themselves by no expression of opinion,
I still think that it would not be fair to pick out fifteen
Members of this House and make them marked men for the purpose
of such pressure as is now distributed more or less over the
whole Assembly.”
The Bradford Committee ignores its reference. It
recommends measures that would cost $6,500,000 a year, in the
hope of satisfying the postal employees, who had asked for
$12,500,000 a year. Lord Stanley, Postmaster General, rejects
the Bradford Committee’s Report; but grants increases in wages
aggregating $1,861,500 a year.
[CHAPTER XIII] The House of Commons Select Committee on
Post Office Servants, 1906
The Post Office Civil Servants’ Unions demand the
adoption of the Bradford Committee Report. Lord Stanley,
Postmaster General, applies the words “blackmail”
and “blood-sucking” to the postal employees’
methods. Captain Norton moves for a House of Commons
Select Committee. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in vain asks the Opposition Party’s
support for a Select Committee to which shall be referred
the question of the feasibility of establishing a permanent,
non-political Commission which shall establish general
principles for settling disputes between the civil servants
and the Government of the day. Captain Norton’s Motion
is lost, nine Ministerial supporters voting for it, and only
two Opposition members voting against it. Mr. J. Henniker
Heaton’s appeal to the British public for “An End
to Political Patronage.” The Post Office employees,
in the campaign preceding the General Election of January,
1906, induce nearly 450 of the 670 parliamentary candidates
who succeeded in being elected, to pledge themselves to
vote for a House of Commons Select Committee on Post Office
Wages. Immediately upon the opening of Parliament, the Sir
H. Campbell-Bannerman Liberal Ministry gives the Post Office
employees a House of Commons Select Committee.
[CHAPTER XIV]
The House of Commons, under Pressure from the Civil Service
Unions, curtails the Executive’s Power to dismiss Incompetent
and Redundant Employees
The old practice of intervention by Members of Parliament
on behalf of individual civil servants with political
influence has given way to the
new practice of intervention on behalf of the individual civil
servant because he is a member of a civil service union. The
new practice is the more insidious and dangerous one, for
it means class bribery. The doctrine that entrance upon the
State’s service means “something very nearly approaching to a
freehold provision for life.” Official testimony of various
prominent civil servants, especially of Mr. (now Lord) Welby,
Permanent Secretary to the Treasury from 1885 to 1894; and Mr.
T. H. Farrer, Permanent Secretary to Board of Trade from 1867
to 1886. The costly practice of giving pensions no solution
of the problem of getting rid of unsatisfactory public
servants.
[CHAPTER XV]
The House of Commons, under Pressure from the Civil Service
Unions, curtails the Executive’s Power to promote Employees
according to Merit
The civil service unions oppose promotion by merit, and
demand promotion by seniority. Testimony presented before:
Select Committee on Civil Services Expenditure, 1873; Select
Committee on Post Office, 1876; Royal Commission to inquire
into the Civil Establishments, 1888; from statement made in
House of Commons, in 1887, by Mr. Raikes, Postmaster General;
and before the so-called Tweedmouth Committee, 1897. Instances
of intervention by Members of House of Commons on behalf of
civil servants who have not been promoted, or are afraid they
shall not be promoted.
[CHAPTER XVI] Members of the House of Commons intervene
on behalf of Public Servants who have been Disciplined
Evidence presented before: The Royal Commission appointed
to inquire into the Civil Establishments, 1888; and the
Tweedmouth Committee, 1897. Instances of intervention by
Members of Parliament. Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Financial
Secretary to the Treasury, in April, 1902, states that at a
low estimate one-third of
the time of the highest officials in the Post Office is
occupied with petty questions of discipline and administrative
detail, because of the intervention of Members of Parliament.
He adds that it is “absolutely deplorable” that time and
energy that should be given to the consideration of large
questions must be given to matters that “in any private
business would be dealt with by the officer on the spot.” Sir
John Eldon Gorst’s testimony before the Committee on National
Expenditure, 1902.
The doctrine of an “implied contract” between the
State and each civil servant, to the effect that the
State may make no change in the manner of administering
its great trading departments without compensating every
civil servant however remotely or indirectly affected. The
hours of work may not be increased without compensating
every one affected. Administrative “mistakes” may not be
corrected without compensating the past beneficiaries of such
mistakes. Violation of the order that promotion must not
be mechanical, or by seniority alone, may not be corrected
without compensating those civil servants who would have
been benefitted by the continued violation of the aforesaid
order. The State may not demand increased efficiency of its
servants without compensating every one affected. Persons
filling positions for which there is no further need, must
be compensated. Each civil servant has a “vested right” to
the maintenance of such rate of promotion as obtains when he
enters the service, irrespective of the volume of business or
of any diminution in the number of higher posts consequent
upon administrative reforms. The telegraph clerks demand that
their chances of promotion be made as good as those of the
postal clerks proper, but they refuse to avail themselves of
the opportunity to pass over to the postal side proper of
the service, on the ground that the postal
duties proper are more irksome than the telegraph duties.
Members of Parliament support recalcitrant telegraph clerks
whom the Government is attempting to force to learn to perform
postal duties, in order that it may reap advantage from having
combined the postal service and the telegraphs in 1870.
Special allowances may not be discontinued; and vacations may
not be shortened, without safeguarding all “vested interests.”
Further illustrations of the hopelessly unbusinesslike spirit
of the rank and file of the public servants.