Restaurant Workers

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 152, 24 March 1938, Page 13

Restaurant Workers

Sir,— Ah president of the Wellington District Hotel, Club and- Restaurant Workers’ Union, I am appealing to you to publish a reply to the statements in “The Dominion” of March 20 and 21, with reference to the restaurant trade as far as it affects the workers concerned. In the first, place both Mr. Carr and Mr. Garland infer that the legislate)!: restricting the employment ol female.-' after 10.30 p.m. is the restrtt of the Labour Harty’s legislation. This amem.ment was passed in 1917 by a Conserr.i tive Government, when Labour had six out of eighty seats in the House. The next complaint refers to our hailholiday commencing at 1 p.m., and suggests 2 p.m. as the most suitable hour. Now, Sir, this is a half-holiday to be given to workers who work in heat, steam, and gas fumes for 44 hours per week. If their half-day is to commence at 2 p.m., what time is left for these workers to enjoy their half day as workers in other industries do? Mr. Garland says he has to let off two .kitchen hands and two waitresses every day at 1 p.m. for their half-day. If that is so he must employ twelve cooks and twelve waitresses in each of his restaurants. Surely he do'esn’t employ an equal number or waitresses and cooks 1 Neither of these gentlemen referred to • the fact that these girls may have their hours spread over a period of 13 hours in shifts to work an eight-hour day. A girl commencing duty at 9 a.m. may not complete her day’s work until 10 p.m. Assuming she lives in a suburb she wnl leave home at 8.30 a.m. and'reach home at 10.30 p.m. The time she has off during the day has to be idled away walking the streets, as tram fares alone would preclude any possibility of her going home for an hour or two. Further to these complaints, these gentlemen suggest that the union or the Government should do something. They both know only.too well that those who represent the workers have, repeatedly offered to meet the employers in conference and discuss matters affecting tae industry, and that the Employers’ Federation has turned a deaf ear to the pro; posal. Did not the Don. H. T. Armstrong, Minister of Labour, make that suggestion to them? And what steps have they taken to this end? Now, while I will admit that there is a scarcity of skilled workers, that is not the reason for closing any restaurant. Mr. Carr only recently furnished, tefitted and opened a new restaurant in addition to the one he already operates. Mr. Garland has also opened a new restaurant since Labour came into office. Does that suggest that Labour's rule has b-en detrimental to the trade? The reason for a scarcity ot skilled labour is that during the depression years our conditions became practically intolerable, and many efficient workers le.t the trade and will never return to it. Some of those who entered the trade during those years were only in it out ot necessity, and as soon as trade gene - ally revived, they got out and were v too pleased to do so. Consequently time were few. if any. workers trained during that period, hence to-days shortage. The New South Wales restauranter introduced to you by Mr. did not mention that in New South Males uorders have what is known as shift woiu, one shift morning and afternoon, and . other afternoon and evening A waitress in Sydney receives £2/2/8 per week, plus meals. In New Zealand _£l/10/- P-us meals, both, of course, minimum wages. Now, Sir, it was only a few months ago .that the restauranters rushed into print and made many statements that Labour’s rule had ruined their business, and trade was falling away. To-day it is a different story—lloo customers in two meals and no staff. . In conclusion, I would suggest to the Restauranters’ Association that they forget their hostility to Labour and mee. the workers’ representatives with an open mind, when I am sure that many differences could be amicably settled to the benefit of both employer and employee.I am, etc., H G j) A VIES. Wellington. March 23.