SECOND VIEW.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 270, 13 November 1937, Page 12

SECOND VIEW.

LABOUR CONFERENCE.

EMPLOYERS' ATTITUDE.

MR. ANDERSON CRITICAL* (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Friday. While the Hon. H. T. Armstrong has criticised the employers' delegates at the International Labour Conference for accepting nomination on behalf of their countries and proceeding to Geneva at Government expense, then declining to discuss some of the proposed conventions, the employers' representative from New Zealand (Mr. W. E. Anderson, Auckland) k also critical from another angle.

The conference considered and passed a convention relating to the hours of work in the textile industry, the New Zealand Government and Labour delegates supporting the convention, and the employers' delegate opposing it.

"I venture to say," states Mr. Anderson in his report, tabled in the House of Representatives to-day, "that this convention would not have been passed if delegates had not been convassed to vote for it by members of the staff of the International Labour Office. Sixteen more votes were cast in favour of the convention at the final vote than at the preliminary vote, and it is safe to say that a considerable number of these votes were obtained as the result of assiduous canvassing of representatives of Governments whose countries have little or no. textile industry." Story Behind Voting. Mr. Anderson gives instances of delegates stating at an early stage their indifference to the subject, and subsequently supporting the textile industry convention. Of 88 votes cast in favour, 51 were from Government delegates, including 25 from countries none of which possess more than 160,000 raw cotton spindles, compared with 30,000,000 in the United Kingdom. This convention advocated a 40-hour week in the textile industry. Similar conventions were submitted for the chemical industry and printing trades, but only the textile convention received the necessary two-thirds majority, "and that," adds Mr. Anderson, "thanks only to the scandalous way in which officials of the International Labour Office and Government delegates of certain countries pressed delegates who were opposed to the 40-hour week to vote in favour of Critical Reporter. Mr. R. McKeen (Govt., Wellington South), who was a Government delegate at the conference, was appointed reporter of the committee set up to consider reduction of hours of work on public or subsidised works. He also has something critical in his report to the Minister of Labour, which ha* been tabli-d in the House.

"One regrettable feature of the deliberations of this committee on the 40-hour week," he said, "was the announcement by employer*' delegates that they refused to take any part in voting on this principle. The employers' attitude generally, both towards this convention and others which were before the conference, was one of open hostility. They were definite in the attitude against supporting anything that meant improvement in the lot of the workers of the world." Different From Legislation. The New Zealand employers' delegate explained in his report that conventions are different from legislation such as exists in New Zealand, as they imposed a hard and fast 40-hour week. There is no ela«tieity, whereas in New Zealand, if an industry proves that it cannot efficiently carry on in face of overseas competition or other reason, the Arbitration Court could grant a 44-hour week.

"I did not think I would be acting in the interests of the employers of New Zealand," added Mr. Anderson, "if I supported conventions which take away the valuable and very sensible loophole provided in our legislation, which is particularly necessary in our country, where we are trying to carry on industries efficiently in face of overseas competition."