FORTY-HOUR WEEK

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1945, Page 2

FORTY-HOUR WEEK

FREEZING WORKERS’ PROBLEM DISCUSSION IN HOUSE . . WELLINGTON, December 5. Difficulties confronting the freezing industry in adapting itself to the 40rhour week were debated in the House of Representatives to-night, when the second reading on the debate of the Factories’ Amendment Bill was continued. Mr. Chapman, (Govt., Wellington North) said that this industry could be so organised that the Saturday morning work could be reduced to a minimum. Mr. Fraser: Not in the rush of the season. ... Mr. Chapman: I understand that the men themselves have undertaken to work Saturday mornings in rush seasons. Mr. Fraser: That is right. _ Air. Chapman said it was time that the privilege of the 40-hour week was extended to the freezing workers. This could be done by rearranging the killing schedule during the week. When men were required to work on Saturday mornings they were entitled to be paid time and a half. ~ , , Mr. Holland (Nat., Christchurch North) said the purpose of the Bill was twofold. First, it sought to establish in certain industries the fiveday week; and secondly, that, m those industries where Saturday morning work was unavoidable, there would be an increase of something like 40 per cent, in the wages of people working in those industries on Saturday morning. , Evidence to the Labour Bills Committee had been to the effect that men would not work overtime. For a number of years slaughtermen had refused to work any overtime at all. MR. FRASER’S REPLY. Mr. Fraser said that if any industry deserved special terms and a special inducement to the workers, it was the freezing industry. The whole industry was serious and important. But it could not be disposed of by rampaging speeches, on one hand, and by unfounded optimism on the other. Adequate wages were given to the mass of the workers. What inducement was there for workers to go into the disagreeable occupations, such as the freezing industry? Mr. Fraser said that on the evidence he had, he did not think that the industry could run satisfactorily at its peak on a 40-hour week, particularly when milk lambs were coming forward. The men knew that, unless the work were done, they would be at a disadvantage. If they were not prepared to work overtime, they would be injuring the country and themselves, and it would be a serious matter of which cognisance would have to be taken. The Opposition claimed that, under the Bill, the workers in the industry were to get the same money for a 40-hour week as they now received for a 44hour week, but the Bill did not say that. It rested with the Court of Arbitration whether the workers received it or not, after taking all of the factors into consideration. It was impossible to have certain industries isolated and handicapped in comparison with other industries. A reasonable period of delay should be allowed to enable plans to be made Tor the necessary reorganisation. Mr. Hackett (Govt., Grey Lynn) said that the effect of the Bill would be that the employers would be asked to pay an addition of less than 4 per cent, of the present pay roll, until the Arbitration Court decided the- future wage based on 40 hours. The purpose of the Bill was to give the industry certain opportunities, and to provide for a penalty rate to make it uneconomic to work on Saturday if it could possibly bo avoided.

' Mr. Polson said there would be a heavy indirect cost, which the farmers would suffer. It would be far greater than £650,000 in direct costs. Killings, of tens of thousands of lambs would have to be stopped at Friday, midday, and lambs left standing in the yards lost a pound weight daily, and also suffered loss in quality. It meant a complete dislocation of killing in the works. Members of the Government appeared to enjoy embarrassment of the farmers. Was it their deliberate intention to make it impossible to carry on farming operations in the country? It was not too late for the Prime Minister to use a little diplomacy and secure a delay till March! “QUITE A GOOD ONE.’’ Mr. O’Brien, replying, said: If no increase in wages rates Were granted, the extra cost of overtime on Saturday morning would be only between £lOO,OOO and £llO,OOO. It has been suggested that the operation of the Bill should be defererd for some time. That is “quite a good one.” If the operation of the Bill were to be delayed for three months, most of the season would be over! He was satisfied that the Bill would not cause any inconvenience of any consequence to the industry. The workers had promised to work on Saturday morning if necessary, and it would probably be necessary to work 44 hours weekly until the industry settled down. The Government intends next session to bring down a measure for the complete consolidation and overhaul of the factories’ legislation, said Mr. O’Brien. He said that originally it had been intended to do so this year but the lateness of the session had prevented the introduction of these consolidation measures, which would incorporate many recommendations made by Dr. J. M. Davidson, who had rather severely' criticised the New Zealand factories and freezing companies. The estimated cost of the Bill would be an additional £664,000 yearly, and the Stabilisation Commission estimated it as up to £750,000 yearly. The Labour Department's estimate was £300.000 if all work were done on five days of the week. Mr. O’Brien asked who was going to find that extra amount? The freezing companies could no.t find it, because they already "were receiving a subsidy of £900,000 yearly. Would the farmers find the cost?

BILLS PASSED WELLINGTON, December 6. Having passed the Factories’ Amendment Bill shortly after midnight, the House, of Representatives had a further discussion on the clause of the Statutes Amendment Bill relating to sharemilkers. Opposition members declared the clause, which had been reported back from the Labour Bills Committee without 'amendment, would be the deathIknell of sharemilking. Those who had engaged sharemilkers would turn to other forms - of farming, and a

splendid avenue of production would be closed. Government speakers maintained i the clause was necessary to meet the failure of parties to reach an agreement. Only in such circumstances would cases be referred to the Court of Arbitration. . The Opposition called for a division and the clause was retained by 39 to 32. The Bill was passed and the House rose at 12.50 p.m. until 2.30 #,m. to-day.