Holidays Bill A New Mark In Social Progress Of World

Northern Advocate, 17 March 1944, Page 6

Holidays Bill A New Mark In Social Progress Of World

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Replying to the second reading of the debate on the Annual Holidays Bill With Pay in the House of Representatives last night, the Hon. P. C. Webb said the measure was a new mark in the social progress of the world. As fgr as his officers could discover, there was not a country in the world where such liberal provision bad been made for workers’ holidays. Opposition members had raised the question of absenteeism being punished by a reduction in holidays. He had had absenteeism in coal mines investigated and it was found that very few men were absent from work unnecessarily. It might be argued that it was not necessary for them to be absent because of influenza or bad colds, but it should be remembered that work in mines or in sawmills was not like work in an office. Men who had to do hard physical work had to be physically fit. As to penalising absenteeism, there was ample provision in the manpower regulations for that. The Bill before the House was not meant to be a penal bill. He was prepared to look into the question of making provision for workers who were engaged for less than a week, but personally he thought the minimum of a week was a sound basis for the scheme. He would welcome any improvement and suggestions could be considered when the Bill was in committee. The Bill was read a second time and referred to the Labour Bills Committee. Casual Workers When the second reading debate was resumed in the afternoon, Mr W. Sullivan (Oppn.-Bay of Plenty) said he agreed that many of the hardest workers had not been entitled to holidays by right, and the provision of holidays for them was a good one. He suggested that some provision should be made where casual employment was for under a week so that a worker such as a jobbing gardener, who might work only a day or two in any one week for one employer, although he worked at his trade for the whole year, would be entitled to a paid holiday. A fortnight's holiday would mean an increase of about 4 per cent in the workers’ pay bill and placed an obligation on industrialists to find two weeks holiday for employees, but did not place an obligation on the employee to refrain from absenteeism. The Minister should consider a penalty for a worker who was absent without cause. He suggested that part of the holiday should be deducted. Endorsing General Practice Mr C. H. Chapman (Govt.-Wellington N.l said the Bill was only endorsing what had become general practice in the majority of industries and was extending the privilege to a comparative few. Mr F. Hackett (Govt.-Grey Lynn) said the answer to the claim that the cost of holidays would be added to the cost of production, was answered bv the fact that the majority of employers were already giving holidays. The Bill brought their competitors into line. Mr M. H. Oram (Oppn.-Manawatu) asked why watersiders were excluded from the provisions of the Bill and left under the care of the Minister. Was it another case of a pressure group exerting influence? he asked. Mr W. J. Poison {Oppn.-Stratford) said that if the Bill was designed to give workers a rest it should insist that thev took their, holidays and not simply permit them to collect 4 per cent more money and go on working. I-Ie was concerned with the effect of the Bill on stabilisation. The committee had been consulted and had given its approval of addition to wages which the Bill involved. If the Stabilisation Commission had agreed to the Bill then the case of primary producers for an increased return was strengthened 10C0 per cent.