“SCANDALOUS CANVASSING”

Evening Star, Issue 22805, 13 November 1937, Page 22

“SCANDALOUS CANVASSING”

STAFF OF INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE ARRAIGNED SECURING VOTES FOR FORTY-HOUR WEEK [From Ouk Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, November 12. While the New Zealand Minister of Labour has criticised the employers’ delegates at tho International Labour Conference for accepting nomination on behalf of their country, proceeding to Geneva, at Government expense, and then electing not to discuss some of tho proposed conventions, the emplovers’ representative from New Zealand, Mr W. E. Anderson (Auckland), is also critical, but from another angle. Ho describes as scandalous the way in which tho officials of tho International Labour Office canvassed delegates. The Conference considered and passed a, convention relating to horn's of work in tho textile industry, New Zealand s Government and Labour delegates supporting tho convention and tho employers’ delegates 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 tho delegates had not been canvassed, to vote for it by members of tho staff of the International Labour Office. Sixteen more votes were cast in favour of tho convention at the final vote than in the preliminary vote, and it is safe to say that a considerable number of these additional votes-'were obtained as the result of assiduous canvassing of the representatives of Governments whose countries have little or no textile industry.” Mr Auderson gives instances of delegates stating at an early stage thenindifference to the subject, and subsequently supporting the textile industry convention. Of 88 votes cast m favour, 51 were from Government delegates, including 25 from countries none of which possessed more than IoU,UOU raw cotton spindles, compared with 39 millions in the United Kingdom. This convention advocated the 40-hour week in the textile industry. Similar conventions were submitted for the chemical industry and the 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 the officials of the International Labour Office and the Government delegates of certain countries pressed delegates who were opposed to the 40-hour week to vote in favour of it.” Mr R. M'Kcen, member for Wellington South, who was the Government delegate at the conference, was appointed reporter of the committee set up to consider the reduction, of hours of work on public or subsidised works. He also has something critical in his report to the Minister of Labour, tabled in the House. “ One regrettable feature of the deliberations of this committee on the 40-hour week was tho announcement by the employers’ delegates that they refused to take any part in the 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 their attitude against supporting _ anything that meant an improvement in the lot of the workers of the world.” 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 elasticity,: whereas in New Zealand, if an industry proves it cannot efficiently can-y on in the face of overseas competition, or for other reasons, the Arbitration .Court _ could grant a 44-hour week. “ I did not think it would fco acting in the interests of the employers of New Zealand,” added Mr Anderson, “ if I supported conventions which take away tho 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 the face of overseas competition.”