FACTORY WORKERS

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 200, 21 May 1936, Page 10

FACTORY WORKERS

Hours, Wages & General Conditions HOUSE PASSES BILL “Purely and Simply For Working Class” "This factories Amendment Bill is designed purely and simply in the interests of tlie working class, and I have no apology to make whatever," said the Minister of Labour. lion. II T. Armstrong, when replying in the House of Representatives yesterday to Hie debate on tlie measure. "We did not set out to overhaul the whole of our factory law. the Arbitration Court and industrial conditions generally Hiis session; we set out to remove some of the injustices workers have be»n suffering for some considerable time That is what I am here for."

The debate on the third reading of the Bill was resumed by the Hon. A. Hamilton (Opposition, Wallace), who said that while it was undoubtedly necessary to make provision for the best wages and conditions that industry could afford, consideration must also be given to the position of the employers and of those who purchased the products of the factories. The effect of the legislation would be that the consumer would have to pay more for goods. The Opposition was not opposed to the 40-hour week so long as it was applied reasonably, and it did not object to the raising of the minimum wage from 10/- to 15/-, but one provision to which it was opposed was that which gave the Arbitration Court a specific direetiou concerning the 40hour week. Members of the Opposition did not consider that it would become workable.

"This Bill has been designed for the workers and the unions,” continued t Mr. Hamilton, "and the employer has hardly been considered. In fact, he has been adversely considered. If he can pass on in some measure the increased costs he will have to face, well and good, but that is a matter in which only time will tell.” Bill Improved by Criticism. Mr. S. G. Holland (Opjiosit ion, . Christchurch North) expressed appre- . ciation of the Minister’s action in delaying the application of the 40-hour week until September 1. Industry generally would be grateful for the breathing space, he said. He expressed the ’ opinion that the Opposition had co- , operated with the Minister during the passage of the Bill, which was a het- . te r measure as a result of the criti- ’ cisni from that side of the House. "In my opinion this Bill does not go far enough, said Mr. Armstrong. "I hope it will not he the last word 1 shall have to say as far as conditions of work |n factories are concerned.” Reference was made by .Mr. Armstrong to a statement by Mr. Hamilton that the international Labour Conference had recommended Hie reduel ion of hours to 40 a week only where it. was possible. Surely it was not suggested that the Government was going to make mandatory the operation of the 40-hour week in eases where it was not possible. It was distinctly laid down in all (he Government's industrial legislation that: where reduced hours could lie proved to lie impracticable they should not: operate. A considerable amount of newspaper space had boon filled by Mr. AV. .1. Polson i Opposition. Stratford) in his denunciation of the 40-hour week, but his arguments had not had much influence on tlie Strafford Borough Council, which liad-already adopted the principle for all its employees. It: would not be the only local body working under the 40-hour week before it wa.s compelled to do so by law. Afr. Hamilton: Local bodies are nut factories. Mr. Armstrong: No, but (he 40-hour week is more adaptable to factories Ilian anything else I know. "We are not directing the Arbitration Court to introduce the 40-hour week all round.” Mr. Armstrong said, "but we are definitely laying it down that in Hie opinion of Parliament the court should have good and sufficient reasons for not, putting it: into, opera tion. There is nothing wrong in that. The court: is supposed to interpret the will of the Legislature.’’ Operation of 40-Hour Week. Mr. Armstrong said that the 40hour week was already in operation in many factories, and others were trying it out. "As a matter of fact,” he added, "we shall have to hurry up and get it into operation or it will be out of date before it. reaches the Statute Book. .Many offices work less than 10 hours a week at present, and the hardest work some of them do is working points.” The Minister said lie was somewhat doubtful about the clause making it an offence for any employer to discharge men because of the operation of the 40-hour week. He did not know it it could very well be enforced. There were some dishonest employers who would victimise workers, but if an employer were dishonest he would be about it in any case, and the court might have difficulty in establishing tre reason why men were dismissed. "In the Arbitration Court once.” Mr Armstrong continued, "1 was attempting fo have it made imperative that employers should not dismiss men for certain reasons. Mr. .Justice Sim told me I would be unwise to press the point, and that if employers objected to the colour of my hair they could use that as a reason. And t did not have much more hair in those davs than I have to-day." The .Minister also referred to the clause enforcing the minimum wage of 15/- a week, rising to £2 a week after j three years. He hoped it would lie the minimum only where the court did not operate and that Hie court itself , would increase tlie minimum in , awards. "Some of my colleagues, in . referring to this clause.” Mr. Arm- , strong added, "said that if workers , did mil start very young I hoy would bo getting their old-age pension before | they wore entitled ,<> (heir two quid." - Eight Baid Holidays. 1 There was provision in I lie Bill fm I eight paid holidays ; year, Hie Min I ister continued. It was strange that ■' such a coneixssiou should bo opposed I by mon who would have no objection to 1 giving four or live weeks’ holiday to i a man receiving £lOOO a year. He him- < self had worked at almost every ocen- i pation—in some places he was not al- I lowed to work too long—and he had never been paid for a single holiday in t his life. In the future such a state of t affairs would not be possible. Tlie ' Opposition claimed that extra holiday i pay would involve industry in an midi- ' tlonal annual cost of £20(1.0(10. That 1 sum wa.s only a fraclion of tlie profee- I tion which Hie Government wanted for industry, and no industry should be t

protected which did not allow its employees to live in ordinary decency. It liad been said tliat the Bill overrode awards and industrial agreements. Mr. Armstrong said. Tliat was not so. It fixed the minimum below which Hie court could not go. Considerable discretion was still left to the court. Tlie clause dealing with one-num faclories was also highly necessary. There were hundreds of Chinese in New Zealand who were compel ing unr.-iirly with general factories a d they would have lo comply wilh the provisions of factories legislation. The same argument applied I • tlie I'armiiig-oiu of work lo be done away from factories. The new provisions in that respect would remove some of the "sweat-shops" that existed in New Zealand at present and which bad never previonsl.v been under I lie law. "Tim on!j criticism from tlie Opposition is tliat the Bill will increase costs to industry." Mr. Armstrong concluded. "That snnie argument has been put forward for years It is threadbare and will not stand examination Industry lias had to adapt itself to changes in the past, and must do so in the flit uro.” The Bill was read a third time on the voices and passed.