3/4406/48
SAVINGRAM
23
1
To the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
From the Governor, Hong Kong.
Date 24 December 1949. No.643
STAFF
5
End
(2) on '48
I attach for your consideration a petition dated 9th
November, 1949, signed by lady members of the Hong Kong Civil Service Chinese Association requesting that the salaries of women civil servants be raised to the level of the corresponding male salaries.
2.
Salary scales for female officers are at present generally 80% of the correspondi: male scales as recommended by the Salaries Commission and approved by your telegram No.1112 of 30th October, 1948.
3. -
As will be seen from the correspondence quoted in the petition itself, the points raised have been carefully considered. The principle of equal pay for equal work has not been adopted in the United Kingdom nor is it current practice amongst employers in this Colony to pay women at the same rates as men. If the principle were to be conceded, it is felt that a demand fran male officers for family allowances would be inevitable and would be hard to resist.
4.
The comparison between the rates of pay of nurses and dressers contained in the Association's letter of 15th September, 1948, to the Colonial Secretary which purports to show a difference in excess of 25% is misleading in that the duties and qualifications of dressers are not the same as those of nurses, their promotion prospects are less favourable and it was not the Salries Commission's intention that the two scales should be strictly comparable.
5.
The statement contained in the Association's letter of 26th January, 1949, to the Colonial Secretary quoted in the petition that "the Salaries Commission did not invite female officers to put forward their opinions and suggestions" is incorrect. The only restriction made by the Commission was that representations from individual officers on grievances of a personal nature would not be considered and the Commission did in fact hear evidence from various groups of women officers.
6.
Cne point in the petition which is not very clearly expressed appears to be that women officers in addition to being penalised in basic salary as compared with their male counterparts are also penalised in regard to cost of living allowance, which is calculated on basic salary, i.e. that in addition to receiving 25% less basic salary they also receive considerably less cost of living allowance than an unmarried male officer of equivalent status. The total emoluments of a woman officer without dependent children are, however, approximately 80% of the emoluments of an unmarried male officer of equivalent status on the scale of cost of living allowances at present in operation. Women officers drawing basic salaries of $320 per month and over in fact receive slightly more than 80% of the total emoluments of their male counterparts.
7.
For these reasons I find myself unable to recommend any change in the relationship between the existing scales for men and women officers doing comparable work and suggest for your consideration that the petitioners should be informed that although you have considered their representations carefully and sympathetically you are unable to accede to their request,
PCMS/aw
Allerd
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.