The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-11-18

"A NG&&%m&MB @WBWGkA&Ak GWAkGMs tiOns of the Waterbury Taxpayers association on Che question of pay raises for city employees was filed with the beard of finance yesters day by the Waterbury Teachers association.
 The teacners' statement, filed by Miss Mary Kennedy, association president, answers claims of the taxpayers' group one by one.
 Said Miss Kennedy:
 ''6y purpose in writing to you Is to present an answer to the state- rment recently submitted by the Wa terbury Taxpayers Association to all members of the Board Of Finance and the local newspapers. Tn this statement the Taxpayers association presented arguments purporting to show that the recommendations for pay increases submitted to your board should be rejected.
 We have given this report our very careful study. We deny its con- clusions and we submit to you the following analysis in refutatlon.
 IneQultable
 1. That the proposal for Q flat
 10 per cent increase is inequit-
 able as among individuals of diff fsfing salary rates and that no
 increases should be made until
 public employment has been on.
 alyzed and reclassified.
 "If inequalities in salary sched- uleS exist in Waterbury, the grant, ing of 0 flat 10 per cent increase merely postpones for the time be- ing the elimination of those discrep. ancies. The question of eliininat- ing the inequalities is another is- sue: 1t does not deny the immediate necessity of the bonus to meet the rising costs of living. After the in- crease has been made Waterbury may need to undertake the long, drawn-out and highly technical process of classification and grad- uation of position in the various public services. It is questionable, however, that such classificattons should be attempted during an emergency period when various temporary dislocations exist,
 Tn the meantime, however, the fact remains that the Waterbury teacher at the very top Of the schedule, a man receiving $3,000 finds that this salary has shrunk by per cent since 1899. Even at the prices prevailing on September IS, he would need s2,240 to provide for himself and his family on the same basis as in 1889. Putting 1t in another way, his present salary of 6, 900 is worth only $2,7o0 when he tries to buy the same things that he bought for S3,000 in l939. It is equally true that the man receiv- ing salary of $500 in both years needs an additional $S per $l00 in order to maintain his former standard of living.
 To postpone this increase until a new classification can be made not only will be an injustice to present employees but will penalize the public service. Many public employees are being attracted into other lines of work where salaries are higher. thus depriving the lo- cal government of the experienced employees needed during the pres ent emergency period.
 Cost of Living
 2. That the 10 per cent increase cannot be justified on the basis of the increase in cost of living.
 The proposed increase does not apply to present salaries, but to salaries for the fiscal year that be- gins in January, i942. The increase in cost of living during I941 and the resulting substantial loss in the value of the salaries received have already been borne by the public employees.
 There is every prospect that the index of cost of living will have reached iiO before the first pay- checks are issued in January and that before the end of the year the index will have gone much higher.
 There seems little prospect that any effective price control measures will be adopted within the next few weeks: in the mean time the upward spiral Of infla- ton Is swiftly rising. In many respects the present situation seems comparable to the latter part of 1916. a year during which the cost of living rose only "A oer cent above the level of 1915. But in 1917 the cost of living rose another l8.0 per cent above the 1915 level, or 2e.3 per cent above the 1918 figure.
 Tt is devoutly to be hoped that some method will be found to prevent such a wild break of prices as resulted during the first World war, when cost Of living finally in 1920 averaged SIS per cent higher than In 1915. But to assume that the peak, in cost of living increase has already been reached is to misjudge the situa- ton totally.
 '%rhe National Industrial Con- ference board. which has been quot- ed by thoae who oppose the suggest- ed increase for the Waterbury pub- ilc employees. has this Co say in the recent issue of the Conference Eoard of Economic Record, dated october aA. 1aA1;