HOLIDAYS WITH PAY

Grey River Argus, 13 December 1938, Page 2

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY

BRITISH PRACTICES. ANCIENT FIVE-DAY WEEK. The importance of the question of nolidays with pay was dealt with, by Lord Amulree in an address on “Industrial Holidays” which he gave at a meeting of the Royal Society of Arts at the society’s 'rooms, John Street, Adelphi, reports “The Times.” In a reference to the history of the subject of holidays, Lord Amulre pointed out that legislation had made provision from time to time; but custom had in some areas at least been more effective than legislation. Some writers held that in medieval England and Scotland labour took few holidays; on the other hand, saints' days and religious festivals were numerous. In Scotland in 1598 they had one day a week a s a holiday—Monday. Those holidays, however, were not to be spent in idleness. They were to be employed by the people in t'hqir armour and in other lawful games and pastimes, procuring, in the language of the statute, “habilitie” of body whereby “all persons’ minds and bodies be recreate” Various schemes before them to-day were thus being observed in Scotland in the sixteenth century—national defence, physical exercises and training, and a five-day working week. The number of manual workers in this country covered by collective agreements ” providing for ‘ holidays with pay was nearly 4,000,000 in September last. Taking into consideration those persons who had holidays with pay otherwise than by collective agreements, about 8/750,000 were now enjoying that benefit. There was testimony that an annual holiday was a good business. Unbroken routine was unnatural to man and harmful to his efficiency. The Jndustflal Welfare Society was of opinion that when account was taken of the enormous annual loss td industry by sickness and voluntary absences which were, often due? to physical and nervous strain, it might well be that holidays, with their.beneficial effect on health, would result in gain r s that offset the immediate cost of the holidays to the employer .

It would be wrong to pronounce in favour of or against holidays simply by reference to their effect on pro-, duction. There are larger considerations, and they must have regard to| their effect bn the workers’ life and well-being. Too much mischief ha,d been done in the past by treating work-people simply as productive units, instead of as human beings. i In the evidence tendered on behalf of employers to the Departmental Committee set up by the Ministry oi Labour, there was a recognition that the case for holidays rested on the broal. ground of social justice. The Departmental Committee had considered that the method of voluntary agreement should he followed as .\->r as possible. He suggested that if such a principle became part of the gener. alcode of industrial ethics legislation, with its comnlications and sources of friction, would be unnecessary.

Not only shoudl holidays be spread over a longer period, but the holidaymakers should be distributed over a wider area. There might be an important part to be- played by local authorities in controlling and supervising existing accommodation and supplementing .it if necessary. The holiday camp movement, at its best held great promise as a means of providing cheap and pleasant holidays, at its. .worst, it might be wholly objectionable. 1 It was desirable, therefore, that the movement with .its great potentialities should come under some survey with a view to proper regulation before it was- too late and before interests became vested in admitted: evils. He did riot wish it to, be thought that he

was in favour of any attempt to “shepherd” those on holiday or to. insist on the workman taking the type of holiday that suoerioi people thought the workmen ought to take rather than the holiday the workman himself desired. Efforts on the workmen’s behalf had sufficient scope if they aimed at ensuring that his accommodation was hygenic and comfortable, food good and abundant, the surroundings decent and pleasant, and the cost within his means. The housewife must not be overlooked. They would all like to see some schemes whereby the wife or mother should be free during the holiday period fpom the cares of housekeeping. In the special areas there were- schemes for enabling the wives of unemployed men to go to holiday centres where they enjoyed a complete break from their household cares. They hoped that, without imposing an additional burden on the State, those schemes might be extended so as to afford similar facilities to the wives of the employed men. Lancashire cotton spinning employers have again refused to grant holidays with pay to the operatives, who number nearly 400.000. A conference was held at Manchester on November 2 with the United Textile Factory Workers' Association, and the operatives' spokesman expressed disappointment at the delay in granting their • request., The employers’ refusal to make the concession was a result of the unsatisfactory state of trade. They undertook to consider the appointment of a joint committee to discuss payment for holidays when the trade could, afford it.