February f 1932 



THE I. A. A. RECORD 



Page Nh$4 



From a Rural Mail Carrier 



Editor of I. A. A. RECORD: 



In the January RECORD I noticed an article 

 by Mr. F. J. McNair of Hamilton county with 

 a heading "PostofSce Salaries." I should like 

 to ask Mr. McNair if he was including rural 

 route carrier when he mentioned "Postal Em- 

 ployees"? If so, on what grounds does he ask 

 them to take a reduction in wages? 



I wish it was possible for Mr. McNair to 

 accompany me or any other carrier who has 

 dirt roads to travel over. Am sure he would 

 agree that the carriers earn their salaries. 



I am a rural carrier, also a Farm Bureau 

 member of Woodford county, and have always 

 tried to help our county organization as much 

 as possible. 



At present the roads are frozen after several 

 days of rain and heavy travel, consequently the 

 ruts are deep and crooked and my car needs 

 extra tall wheels to clear the bumps. But I 

 try to give my patrons service with a smile even 

 though my fingers get cold fishing pennies from 

 the mail boxes. 



So, Mr. McNair, why not try and reduce the 

 cost of the government by reducing the salaries 

 of persons who are not as closely connected 

 with the farmer as the rural carriers are? 

 George T. Clark, 

 ■;.■'..■ ':-^ <■ Woodford County, 111. 





From a Postal Employee 



; : Editor of I. A. A. RECORD: ^ '- 



As a member of the Farm Bureau and I. A. 



', A., also an employee in the Postal Service, may 



I ask that you publish the following in response 



to the article written by F. J. McNair in the 



January issue on "Postoffice Salaries." 



"I have served in the capacity of postal em- 

 '~.^- ployec for the past 29 years and I think I know 

 at least a few things with reference to this 

 department — the responsibility attached thereto, 

 the expenditure necessary to carry on this ser- 

 - vice, and also the rate of postage charged to 

 meet this expenditure. 



"I'll agree with you, Mr. McNair, the Postal 

 Dept. does have a deficit, and has had for many 

 years back, even during the best times. This 

 department is not intended as a money-making 

 proposition, although it could easily be made 

 into one. This is a service to you, as you can 

 ' go anywhere and you will not get one-tenth 

 for your money as the service which the Postal 

 Dept. gives you. 



; Salaries the Same ^ 



"You would still be getting this service cheap 

 if the cost were five times as high, in which 

 case the postal employees might be better paid. 

 And still you think that postal salaries are too 

 high. They are practically the same as when 

 the farmer was getting six or eight times for 

 wheat and corn over what he is getting now. 

 And we, as well as everyone else had to pay 

 the price for everything the farmer raised. 



"You did not see any articles written at that 



time about the salaries of postal employees being 



raised in proportion to the raise the farmer got. 



, No, I think not. You also never read a word 



■ from the postal employees, condemning the 



farmer because he was receiving ridiculous prices 



for everything he raised. The farmer received 



high prices for years, and the biggest reason that 



some are in bad today is, that because of his 



greed for more, he bought still more land, 



and he is now stuck with it. The farmer who 



is not in debt today is getting along all right 



•:. and he will continue to do so. 



- The Army and Navy 



"You speak of taxes being so high. Yes, we 

 all know that they are. But do you really think 

 that the Postal Department is at fault on ac- 



count of it, even in a small way? I know it 

 is not, and so do you. Also, do you really 

 know just what government tax you pay? 

 Look it up, you will find it one of your small- 

 est tax items. Do you know where the heavi- 

 est tax burdens of the U. S. fall? No? Well, 

 I'll tell you — the United States army and navy. 

 Do you know the second lar,^est tax burden? 

 It is for the U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

 a department created for the sole benefit of 

 the farmer. And who do you suppose pays this 

 tax? Just the farmer? Not by any means. 

 Everyone helps pay, and the postal employees do 

 their share? 



"But why kick about that now? Consider- 

 ing all the wonderful improvements we have 

 received the past H years, such as schools, roads, 

 governmental services of various kinds and fine 

 public improvements, what else can we expect? 

 The Postal employees sincerely regret the de- 

 plorable condition of some of the farmers, but 

 who is to blame? Should the regular standing 

 salaries of postal employees be cut now, to meet 

 30c corn, and have nothing done about it when 

 it sold for one and two dollars? That is cer- 

 tainly a very 'broad-minded' view of the situa- 

 tion, isn't it? And to think that this so-called 

 depresspn is less than a year old. 



Once a Farmer 



"I am glad to say that I am a Postal worker, 

 an employee of the government, in the greatest 

 business of the U. S. today. I have also been 

 a farmer previous to this work, and with years 

 of experience in the Postal Department serving 

 farmers, I should know something about them, 

 and I certainly am interested in them, anything 

 which pertains to them, and above all, I like to 

 see them prosperous and successful. 



"I am associated with the I. A. A., and I must 

 say it certainly does not behoove the farmer to 

 continually present for publication through the 

 columns of their farm journals articles antago- 

 nistic to the Postal employees, or any other) class 

 of laborers for that matter, but especially the 

 rural carriers, who through the generosity of 

 the Postal Department in creating the rural 

 routes, is the farmers' best friend. And I fully 

 believe any fair-minded person will bear me 

 out in this statement, and I am glad to say 

 that my experience has proven that the great- 

 est per cent of the farmers are of the fair- 

 minded type." 



John C. Alexander, 



Tazewell County, 111. 



More About Postal Salaries 



GW. WEEKS of Tazewell county expresses 

 • himself feelingly in a 3,200 word letter 

 upholding the postoffice service and salary sched- 

 ule. Space does not permit publication of the 

 entire letter. Mr. Weeks says in part: 



"I entered the Postal service in 1919 at a 

 salary of $90 per month, and was sent to Chi- 

 cago to work in the Union Terminal of the 

 Railway Mail Service. At that time bread 

 was fifteen cents per loaf, sugar was eighteen 

 dollars per hundred, potatoes three dollars per 

 bushel, and rent and other living expenses were 

 correspondingly high. Mr. McNair, I suppose, 

 lived during that period and should know what 

 awful prices had to be paid for everything that 

 was purchased. 



Loses $50 a Month 



"I worked in Chicago about three months 

 when I was sent out on the railroads as a 

 railway postal clerk. This service required 

 that I spend at least a part of my time away 

 from home, with the attendant necessary ex- 

 pense, all to be paid out of ninety dollars per 

 month. In November of that year I resigned 

 my position in the Railway Mail Service, after 

 discovering that I had found it necessary to 

 spend approximately fifty dollars per month 

 more than I was getting. , 



"During the time we lived in Chicago we 

 exercised the utmost care in providing for our- 

 selves; in fact, we were unable to buy enough 

 to eat in order that our rent might be paid 

 and carfare provided. During that year and 

 the next two to follow, many railway mail 

 clerks found it necessary to quit the service 

 because of inadequate pay. I wonder if Mr. 

 McNair could have done any better than I did, ; 

 or than the dozens of other clerks did. Alio, 

 I wonder if the years 1919, '20 and '21 come 

 within the meaning of the word 'many' which 

 he used when he stated 'for many years.' That 

 much for the Railway Postal clerks who were 

 paid 'unnecessarily high salaries.' 



"Next, let us consider the case of the rural . 

 letter carriers. At the time of our entry into ,,; 

 the World War in 1917, the rural carrier wai ■■„ 

 getting $1,500 per annum. From that amount ' 

 it was necessary to pay the expense of keeping 

 a team of horses, for which he had to buy 

 hay, corn and oats for feed, and straw for 

 bedding. Also, he had to have a pasture for 

 them during the summer months, which, as a \ 

 rule, he had to rent. At that time the rural . 

 carrier was also using a car for delivery, when 

 the roads were good, and in fact, the rural pa- 

 trons demanded this service. Incident to the 

 use of the car, was the necessary purchase of , 

 gas, oil and tires, in addition to the deprecia- 

 tion in value of the car. 



"After our inception in the war, as everyone :. 

 knows, prices of commodities went up and up, 

 and continued that way until about 1922, when 

 we had some decrease in certain articles (uch ;. 

 as sugar, bread and a few others, but high 

 prices continued on other things until the be- 

 ginning of the present depression in 1929. Did 

 the salaries of the rural carriers follow this 

 upward trend in prices? Not so that Mr Mc- . 

 Nair could notice it. Before the war the rural 

 carriers got along fairly well on $1,J00 per 

 annum, but I don't know of any of them who 

 got rich. 



Rural Carrier in 1920 ^ 



"On March 15 th, 1920, I accepted a position 

 as rural carrier at a base pay of $1,500 per 

 annum, plus $30 a mile for excess mileage, pur- 

 chased an automobile for $800, a team of horsei . 

 for $200, a set of second hand harness for $25 

 and a mail wagon for $175. During that year 

 I kept account of the necessary expense of serv- 

 ing my route, and found that it amounted to 

 $810 per annum. On July 1st of that year 

 my salary was increased to $1,800 base pay with 

 excess milage, which made me a salary of 

 $1,920, which, after deducting $810 necessary 

 expense of running my route, left me a net 

 income of $1,100 for my year's work. If Mr. 

 McNair can explain why that was an 'unneces- 

 sarily large salary' with prices as they were at 

 that time, he can do better than I can. I 

 wouldn't be surprised to learn that he made 

 more money than that himself, but what he 

 made wasn't 'unnecessarily large.' Mr. McNair 

 should have had to keep himself and family 

 and buy everything he used on that salary, and 

 then he would be able to realize just how 'un- 

 necessarily high* it was. 



"This salary pay continued until July 1, 1925, 

 when it was again increased by the addition of 

 a maintenance allowance, which increased the 

 pay of carriers at our office approximately three 

 hundred dollars. By adding thu three hundred 

 dollars to the $1,100 previous net pay, we find 

 that the carriers were receiving a net salary of 

 $1,400 after July 1st, 1925. But what about 

 what had been happening to them the past 

 eight years? With prices continuing the same 

 as they were before, this increase was greatly 

 needed, but still it failed to furnish the carrier 

 with what might be considered an 'unnecessarily 

 high salary.' However, now that 'the depression 

 is on,' as Mr. McNair puts it, and prices have 

 decreased considerably, the rural carrier is just 



{Continued on next ptge) 



