SHIP’S HAIRDRESSER

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 December 1940, Page 4

SHIP’S HAIRDRESSER

MANPOWER QUESTION. Is a ship’s hairdresser essential? This question* came before the Wellington Manpower Committee when Sydney Dalton McLeod appealed on the ground of undue hardship. The appeal was supported by representatives of the company running the ship. > The chairman, Mr. M. F. Luckie, asked the company’s representatives it a . ship’s hairdresser was an essential part of the complement. The answer was “Yes, it would be impossible to replace him.” It was stated that the ship was in competition with others, some foreign, and it was essential to give passengers every attention possible. This included women passengers’ hairdressing. . McLeod also had a shop aboard stocked with, £5OO worth of goods and appliances such as hairwaving and drying machines. This stock was his own, as was the profit from it. The company paid him a nominal wage, and he kept the profits. It would bejdifflcUlt to get another man with the capital to take over McLeod’s shop. He gave attention to the crew as well as passengers, thus saving them time in port. He had been at sea three years, so it was not a question of going to sea to avoid military service. Mr. E. E. Canham, committee member, asked whether having regard to the exigencies of the war, it mattered whether people went unshaved or with their hair over their shoulders.' The company’s representative stated that the experience was that passengers wanted to go ashore looking smart. The appeal was dismissed conditional on McLeod rtot being called up before March 15, 1941.