THE BURNING QUESTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18771, 26 July 1924, Page 6 (Supplement)

THE BURNING QUESTION.

BX VIVXEH. ' ; "To tea or not to tea—that is the ijuestion!'?.' And though; the flippant: absurdity sounds perilously like a ;?f?ifked parody en the famous utterance of a certain "melancholy Dane," whose mentality and complexities of character form one of the most fascinating bit 3 of psychology in English dramatic literatnre, and whose creator would no doubt, turn in his grave at such levity—still, perhaps oven Shakespeare would pardon the unfortunate similarity of sound if he lived in these modern times and if he were j. u shivery mortal condemned to a chilly .fjffiee with no fire and no radiator and no jiuniihine, and if finally he were a Songsuffering typiste in the service of an employer who cast a sternly disapproving eye on the office teapot and obstinately averted his nose from the steaming fragrance of the " cup that cheers!" Of course, to begin with, the tea-drink-ing habit is in itself a perennial and fruitful source of argument. Doctors tell ns witfi monotonous regularity that tea is " bad for car nerves," that it " encourages rheumatism " and a host of other ailments, that it " ruins our digestions " and is a foolish and unnecessary habit anyway. And we wisely nod and agxeey.or indignantly protest, or smile in conciliatory fashion or merely shrug onr shoulders, according to oar several j temperaments. But nevertheless,, openly or secretly, defiantly or surreptitiously, we go on "doing it." Moreover, the feminine portion of the community at least is apt to console itself with the comfortable reflection thai its cups of tea are no! mors harmful, or unnecessary than the frequent "smokes" or mysterious-." spots'.', in which its lords' and masters indulge with airy unconcern , throughout the day, and with which they fortify themselves ; against business vexations or unoleasant weather conditions. Further, f.f driven too tar women might feel themselves fully justified in arguing! that the only reason why the do not protest wit'i eaual vehemence against the physical ills resulting from over-indul-gence in other forms of "Ikmid refreshment" ,is because they themselves are | generally men and as such are prone to look with a more indulgent iayeon the j weakness to which their own sax is most liaWs. '. But to return to the vexed question of morning and afternoon tea as applied to busineiisi girls in particular. The whole trouble is, of cqurse, that the practice is en frequentlv abused. Any humane employer, capable of feeling and showing thoutrht/ulness and consideration for the comfort and welfare of his staff, must realise that thff institution of morning and afternoon tea is not only .hound to be of very real benefit to iihe girls themselves, but also, by providing them with fresh stimulus and a br?,sf: relaxation, is certain to react favourably on their work as well. On the other hand any employer may be forgiven foif wrathfully denouncing fie practice or foir refusing to institute it if his experience has proved that in too many -cases •• it; simply serves _as an >;';' . excuse for continually and consistently wasting valuable office-time., Girls who have no scruples about abusing a privilegis have no right whatever to expect to retain it, or to bo indignant ii 1 they lose; it. If both sides had a keener apprecH ation of what is due to each other, and a better understanding of the meaning of consideration* antf ; . on« hand and honesty and fair play on the other, there would he less friction and argument over the whole question.