CASE OF WOMEN

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 93, 16 October 1914, Page 3

CASE OF WOMEN

WORK IN WOOLLEN MILLS COUNCIL REJECTS BILL NO REDUCTION OF HOUPS. The battle in the Upper House over the Factories Act Amendment Bill, a measure to reduce working hours of women workers in woollen mills from 48 to 45, ended yesterday afternoon, when the motion to commit the Bill was defeated by 16 votes to 10. The Bill was passed without much opposition in the Lower House under the charge of Mr. T. M. Wilford, but was blocked by the Labour Bills Committee of the Legislative Council, which recommended that it be not allowed to proceed. A stout fight for the life of the measure was put up by the Hon. J. T. Pau) against great, opposition, and the debate wa« adjourned froni Wednesday afternoon to yesterday afternoon, when Hon. J. MacGregor strongly attacked the measure. The earlier part of his remarks appeared in yesterday's Post on the motion to commit the Bill. Pursuing tl»e argument, Mr. MacGregor said there v»a« a difference in duty of five per cent, in favour of clothing factories as against woollen mills, and this had an important bearing on the wages paid and hoars worked. It was wrong that the Council should encourage Labour unions^ to flout the Arbitration Court ( and bring their application* to the Legislature instead of Defore tho Court. (Hear, hear.) The adult male employees in woollen mills might be opposed to the proposed reduction of hours for women, workers. Probably they were^ Sir William Hall-Jones : The evidence ib that it is not so. Mr. MacGregor contended there was absolutely no justification for the changes demanded. Members should be guided by their reason and not by their feelings in the matter. FOR THE COURT, NOT THE COUNCIL. The Hon. John Duthie said the Committee had no option in rejecting th« Bill, as it did not admit of amendment. The whole question should have been referred to the Arbitration Court, and not brought before Parliament at all. The Legislature had no right to go behind the back of the Arbitration Court. The Bill was a, class of measure they ought to stop. (Hear, hear.) Did the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill into the Council think of the consequences of breaking solemn engagements between employers and employees? They had to consider a number of questions — th« coat of production, the price to be obtained from the purchaser, and many others. He was a Free-trader, bat he would go far enough to accept small increase in protection to enabl* the hours to be equalised. He hoped that Parliament would go into the question of the tariff next session and see what could be done. Here was a case for the real services of the Council in stopping a hasty, ill-considered measure from becoming law. ■ The Second Chamber ought to be able to have an independent opinion and give effect to it. There was a proper way to amend all laws, and the Labour Party had to learn that it was mot well to try to snatch a- passing op to reduce hours like this. The party had to gain the confidence and respect of the community, and they' could not hope to do it by'such pranks as this. MR. PAUL DEFENDS THE MEASURE. The Hon. J. T. Paul, in reply, declared that on critical occasions he had stood on his own ground, independently of other people, and Mr. MacGregor had no right to insinuate that the promotion of this measure came from the Federation of Labour. The procedure he had adopted in the Council was the only possible procedure to get the Bill back on the floor of the Council. Hon. H. D. Bell : Hear, hear. Mr. Paul contended that he had not reflected on members of the Council in cornection with the blocking of the Bill by the Labour Bills Committee. He proceeded to read a proof of his speech from Hansard. Mr. Maginnity : Is that a revised proof? Mr. Paul : Does the hon. member mean to insinuate that I have cooked my report? Mr. Maginnity denied that this was his suggestion. Mr. Paul urged that the Government should have taken the responsibility in the Representative Chamber of opposing a measure which they might have thought was not in the best interests of the country, instead of shelving the responsibility on the Council. (Hear, hear.) The only evidence that the workers were satisfied was given by the employers. Whatever might be said of the evidence of Mr. Kennedy, secretary of the Woollen Workers' Union, it was at any rate quite straightforward. (Hear, hear.) He contended that Mr. Kennedy proved everything that could be proved from the workers' point of view. The Labour Party had shown by their attitude that they were very much in earnest about the Bill. Objection had been raised on the ground that secretaries of • unions should be employed in the industry. Hon. Mr. Earnshaw : flear, hear. CASE OF UNION SECRETARIES. Mr. Paul : There are many cases where secretaries dare not be employed in the industry. , Mr. Earnshaw : Rot ! • • Mr. Paul cited an instance where a secretary and many other members of the union were dismissed because they were members of the union. A secretary must either be in the industry and devote his spare time to union work or he must take up union work, perhaps, with more than one union. Hon. George Jones : What about employers' agents?* Mr. Paul said the attitude was apparently different towards them. A union secretary must be independent to serve the workers best. It was possible, continued the speaker, to reduce hours to a certain extent without decreasing the output. This was a matter that should be dealt with scientifically. This was especially the case with piece-work. The whole trouble was due to the iniquitous action of the Council thirteen years ago. Since then there had been many improvements in machinery. The Council still stood between the women workers and reform Why was such » fetish made of the Arbitration Court? Parliament was the Supreme Court of the land. Much as he valued the respect of his colleagues on the Council and the Leader of the Council he would be prepared to sacrifice all in the cause of this measure of reform for the women workers of the Dominion. (Hear, hear.) LOST ON DIVISION. A division was taken on the motion to commit the Bill. The motion was lost by 16 votes to 10. Ayes (10) — Hons. Paul, Jones, Louisson, Beehan, Earnshaw, Parata, Baldey, Hall-Jones, Thompson, Wigram. Noes (16) — Hons. Bell, Aitken, Duthie, George, M'Gibbon, Nikora, Moore, MacGregor, Fisher, Morgan, Hardy, Ormond, Maginnity, Simpson, Mills, Samuel.