SHOPS AND OFFICES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 80, 1 December 1945, Page 3

SHOPS AND OFFICES

FORTY-HOUR WEEK PROPOSED

BILL BEFORE HOUSE QUESTION OF SATURDAY CLOSING Wellington, Nov., 30. Mr O’Brien, Acting Minister of Labour, speaking to the second Reading of the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives said that the Bill provided for a forty-hour week and gave the Arbitration Court power to fix the opening and closing hours of shops. As a matter of fact the court had had that power for 17 to 18 years. The court was also given power to fix a full closing day for any one day of the week, if it were thought necessary. There had been a movement throughout New Zealand for the closing of shops for one day in the week, said the Minister, and it seemed to him that there should be some responsible tribunal which should say whether shops were to close. He went on to say that many butchers’ shops closed all day Saturday and it seemed to him that they should be the very last to close on that day. However, that had been the position in Hamilton for seven years, Rotorua for five years, and Whangarei and Te Kuiti for three years. A year ago the Wellington master butchers had agreed to close all day Saturday. He said that of 276 general stores in Queen Street, Auckland, 270 closed on Saturday. Mr Goosman (National, Waikato): 1 Conspiracy between employers and employees. Mr O’Brien went on to say that of the 121 shops in Karangahape road Auckland, 13 kept open on Saturday. In Wellington all boot stores, ironmongers and several drapers’ stores closed on Saturday. He had been informed that the general storekeepers in New Zealand took a ballot recently with the exception of Auckland, on Saturday closing. Mr Goosman: Did they take consumers into the ballot? Mr O’Brien: No. The Minister said that only by a small majority was the ballot carried not to close. There seemed a general desire on behalf of shopkeepers and shop assistants to— Mr Broadfoot (National, Waitomo): Butcher the consumers. Mr O’Brien—to close on Saturday. CONTENTIOUS LEGISLATION The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, said he protested emphatically against the Government’s decision to introduce such a highly contentious piece of legislation at this stage of the session, legislation which had no regard for the consumer. He appealed to the Government to remov the contentious features of the Bill. Mr Holland said that the Bill was designed to do one of two things, either to close shops on Friday night and all Saturday or to increase the wages. He said there was no such thing as a 40hour week and agreed with Mr Doidge (National, Tauranga) that it was a point at which overtime began. If there was a universal forty-hour week introduced in New Zealand it would be the worst piece of legislation the Government could consider. There would be no trams, trains, sports, newspapers, no deliveries of milk, and no hotels or restaurants open. It would be utterly absurd for instance to run a sheep farm on a forty-hour week. In the proposals for a forty-hour week there were three parties interested. The Minister had mentioned two, the worker and the shopkeeper, but he had neglected the purchasing public whose interests should predominate. Mr Holland declared that the Bill was designed solely to increase wages and not for the purpose of a forty-hour week which would be impossible to have within a five day week with Friday night opening. If it were the aim of the Government to have a five-day shonpine? and a forty-hour week there would be very wide repercussions from the womenfolk and shoppers of the country who had not been given any consideration. The Bill, continued Mr Holland specifically exempted hotels and if they were brought into the legislation, there would be a general strike next day and then the Government could capitulate according to its usual custom. Mr Holland contended that it was possible to establish a forty-hour week without imposing Saturday closing. Housewives who had to do their shopping often with 2 or 3 children and who had to carry heavy burdens were being ignored. The evidence before the Labour Bills Committee was that 90 per cent of the shoppers were women. DAYLIGHT BAKING “Before any of us pass the law requiring women to cope with the increased difficulties which this Bill imposes we should do shopping for a week for our womenfolk and see just what it involves,” declared Mr Holland. Mr Holland said that provision was also to be made, though not in this legislation, for daylight baking. No baker would bake bread on Friday if there were no shops open to sell it on Saturday. The result would be that Thursday’s bread would have to last until Tuesday and to say the situation could be n et by baking a few scones was simply throwing one more task on the housewife. The Bill would also result in absenteeism of women from industry and any measure 4 reducing production was bad. Women were entitled to have the opportunity to have their hair set and to do their shopping and Saturday closing would deprive factory workers of that opportunity. Already there had been complaints from Auckland school masters that children were being kept home on Fridays because their mothers needed their help to cope with the week-end shopping. “Nobody in this House wants to see a woman obliged to buy a hat without having had a chance to try it on,” said Mr Holland. RIGHTS OF WOMEN Speaking of the right of women to have adequate hours to do their essential shopping, he said that the evidence before the committee was overwhelming that black marketing was rampant in the grocery trade. When grocers’ shops were shut and dairies continued selling groceries that was wrong, but the fact was that it was impossible 1o ex force the law against dairies which obviously depended largely on the grocery business for their livelihood. More than half of the week’s shopping was concentrated on Friday and Saturday, according to evidence submitted tc the committee on behalf of a leading chain store, and if Saturday closing were enforced shops could not cope with the extra business on Friday. A pledge had been given by the Minister of Labour, Mr Webb that a conference would be called between employers and employees and if that had been done employers could have produced within a few days a plan for a 40-hour week

without involving Saturday morning closing. However the Minister was out of the country and that pledge had been dishonoured.

One of the worst features of the Bill was that it widened the gap between town and country, said Mr Holland. If a five-day week were worked in all town occupations how could workers be expected to remain in rural jobs working seven days weekly. “What man in the Government cares two buttons for the primary producers,” said Mr Holland. "The Government has got its knife into them.” If a five-day week was right for the towns was it wrong for the country? If it were possible m the towns to be paid £2 15s weekly just for sitting in trams and going to and from work, was it wroi.g to pay travelling time in the country? The prosperity of shops and businesses depended in the long run on primary producers but legjlation of this type merely aggravated the drift to towns which had been evident for years. The House should hesitate before passing any legislation increasing the disparity between conditions of town and country work. Country people recognised that factory work was hard and difficult and that where possible a forty-hour week should obtain but public interest must be considered and there should be recognition of the fact that a five-day week was not practicable in some cases.

Mr Chapman (Government, Wellington North) said that the Leader of the Opposition had made a pretence cf favouring the forty-hour week and then proceeded to amass reasons why it was impracticable. The Government recognised that there were some industries which could not operate a forty-hour week but in many cases where it had been held impracticable in the past it was now working smoothly. There had been ample opportunity for the Labour Bills Committee to hear evidence and the committee’s finding was not unanimous because it had been taken on purely party lines. A great plea had been made on behalf of the public, but who comprised the public? It included hundreds of thousands of people who had already enjoyed the forty-hour week and they would be prepared to co-operate to make that boon available to shop assistants. Arguments were always raised against the improvement of conditions for any section of workers and the opposition were making their attitude abundantly clear. Mrs Ross (National, Hamilton) said that the laws at present were too onesided. If shorter hours were to be worked it should be made universal, but if women could not buy a bottle of tomato sauce on Saturday morning a man should not be able to buy his beer. Miss Howard (Government, Christchurch) said she wanted Saturday closing and five-day, forty-hour week which once it came into force would simply require the people gf New Zealand to organise their lives. Mothei's would appreciate the help of their girls on Saturdays if those girls did not have to work in the shops. The public was ready for a five-day, forty-hour week and did not oppose the proposals contained in the Bill. Mr Adam Hamilton (National, Wallace) said that not much had been said in the Bill about offices. All things were relevant and when something was given to one section of the community, relations with other sections would be disturbed. Workers in shops and offices were not the only ones to be considered for a holiday. Why not include the police force? It seemed to him that the less important a section of the community was, the more benefits it received.