Grey River Argus FRIDAY, June 17, 1927. NURSES’ HOURS.

Grey River Argus, 17 June 1927, Page 4

Grey River Argus FRIDAY, June 17, 1927. NURSES’ HOURS.

It yas confessedly upon the score of expense alone that a bare majority of Hospital Board members voted at last night’s meeting against bringing the working time of the nursing staff of the Grey River Hospital into line with that of the general run of workers. By the same reckoning, employers would only need to show the Arbitration Court that the eight-hour day or the weekly half-holiday by its abrogation would reduce expenses in order to lengthen the hours of their employees. It is l not as if funds were so limited in the case of the Hospital that the

institution of a week of six working days each of eight hours would be _ impossible. The argument against this was the need to increase the probationer staff in order to give it effect. The public, were the question nut to a referendum, would by a large majority support the treatment of Hospital nurses with the same consideration as is extended by the Arbitration Court to absolutely every class of workers who invoke it. The majority in last evening’s division counted only the money; but against this there must be reckoned the improved service and increased efficiency which more normal hours would introduce. The extra employment afforded would be for young workers, nearly all moderately paid, ,and in any case, the only defence for treating nurses worse in this matter than any other class of workers is a custom that has in this one instance perpetuated the labour exploitation which was so universal before the workers organised to put an end to it. It is a regrettable fact that three generations after the institution of the eight-hour day, nurses, whose work is very exacting and tiresome, should still be exploited with a thirteen-day fortnight of more than eigth hours per day. It is not because the workers concerned are women that any unfair advantage should be taken. Many people who would raise the cost question would demur if asked themselves to work the hours they would impose upon Hospital nurses. Of course, as already remarked, the bad old tradition of long hours prevails almost throughout the public Hospitals, ■and each Board is thereby influenced. It may seem that, as ratepayers are more numerous than nurses, the majority will favour no change, but as sure as daylight the reform in question will come. It would have been to the local Board’s lasting credit if it had given a lead. The only reflection prompted by the decision taken is that the question must not be allowed to drop, but must be raised repeatedly, if necessary, until the reform is given effect.