Postal Shock Troops
Sirs:
Postal workers view TIME'S try at painting the Roper lily (Letters, Aug. 28) as scarcely TiME-worthy. In no wise existing on "public money on which the taxpayer gets no tangible returns," the postal service renders as tangible and indispensable a service as that given by the telephone, telegraph, railway and express companies. And ''public money" is public money whether paid indirectly through the Postoffice Department or directly to a utility.
Postal salaries were thoroughly deflated during the World War. Having no part in the wage rises given the Government-controlled railway workers, letter carriers and postal clerks stuck to their jobs at wages one-half those paid to textile workers. Salaries were not equitably adjusted until 1925. And the classification act of that year was admittedly a compromise, a lower wage than was just being fixed, coupled with an assurance of decreased living costs. Now, in the face of assured inflation and soaring prices, postal salaries must once more be "deflated."
Can postal workers be blamed for wondering why they must always fill the role of shock troops? A Bilbo, clipping newspapers at a desk lor $6,000 a year, gets no applause from a sub carrier, trying to exist at $8-or less-a week.
CHESTER A. GRIFFIN
Franklin, N. H.
Fortunate Housekeeper
Sirs:
Alma Jacobsen, whose letter is printed in Aug. 21, TIME, must have been extremely unfortunate in her experiences; or the possessor of a "chip on the shoulder," which, quite naturally, brings misfortune in her wake. A few corrections should be made upon her letter.
Just why "persons seeking domestic employment are invariably in dire circumstances" is puzzling in the extreme. High wages have been the rule, rather than the exception, for many years.
If Miss Jacobsen will add the cost of a room and private bath, board, the use of the laundry and the telephone to her $15 per week "wages," the total amount may surprise her and possibly change her point of view. . . .
If there is a houseworker who begins her work at 6:30 a. m., as Miss Jacobsen asserts, I have failed to find or hear about her in 25 years of housekeeping. Inefficiency may account for the long hours of which Miss Jacobsen complains.
My own household has been adequately and pleasantly served, during these many years, with the changes of houseworker that the monotony of the work and other circumstances make inevitable. I recognize my good fortune, and further add my gratitude that no Miss Alma Jacobsen has crossed my path.
H. B. NESBITT
Scarsdale, N. Y.