SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7300, 2 December 1910, Page 6

SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

HON. J. BABB'S VIEWS. (To the Editor “N.Z. Times.") Sir,—A letter has been circulated amongst members of botli Houses of Parliament this evening by Mr Pryor, secretary New Zealand Employers’ Federation. As its ’contents will in all probability be, inserted in /our columns X would • feel obliged if you would publish, a few comments thereon. The writer. Mr Pryor, complains of an injustice that in his opinion is being done to private hotelkeepers through the hours provisions in the Shops and Offices Bill just passed. He finds fault with the fixing of 62 for males and 52 hours for females in private hotels, while 62 hours : for males and 58 hours for ‘ females have been fixed ■ for licensed hotels. The Bill, as Mr Pryor knows, is for New Zealand, not for Wellington alone. For some time there: has been no regulations affecting private hotels In Auckland and Canterbury industrial districts, while the licensed hotels have been restricted to 65. 3Tot Mr Pryor- has. nevei complained of an injustice to the! licensed hotelkeepers, although to my knowledge | complaints as to the unfair position have been made by those affected. Those complaints. were, however, not justified so far as all' the employees were concerned, as those employed in the rrming-roome of private hotels come utder the hours' provisions of the original Shops and Offices Act. That ia to say, they should only be worked 52 hours per week. It would appear from Mr Prvor s statement that this has been violated wholesale. Speaking for Christchurch, I know it has not. In Dunedin the principal private hotels entered into a® agreement, subsequently made an award of the court, on the Ist of March, 1909. The hours agreed to were 60 for males and 62 for females. In this case it will b© seen an injustice, has been done, not to the employer, however, but to the employed, ae the amending Bill increases the hours to 62 for males. In Otago, Canterbury, and Auckland, the hours of males are fixed by the Arbitration Court at 60, two hours less than what fixed by the new law.. This ia surely an injustice to the employee, and one that Mr Pryor has failed to point outWith respect to the complaint about 10 hoiu», oyster-saloons keeping open six days have been quoted, but restaurants keeping open seven days have been conveniently forgotten, so that while 55 may be worked in some cases, the full 62 can be worked in others. His anxiety is that of Shylocks. he can’t get his exact pound of flesh. If there is to be legislation for ©very particular business we are likely to ret eight hours for oyster-saloons. As "Mr Pryor i p “fully acquainted” with all those businesses he must know that the work in an oyster-saloon is much more arduous and disagreeable than in a restaurant. With respect to 'he 10 hours per day, might I point out that neither hour of starting nor hour of stopping is stated. The working of the hours can be regulated by the employer to suit his business. Some places are slack in the daytime, and busy m th© evening; in others th© revere© is the case. Where regular meals are served there is an “off” period between each meal. With regard to the statement that “unless an immediate alteration is made black ruin stares a great number of thosu employers in the face,*’ I have heard much the same statement over and over again. As an argument it is worn out : and not worthy of such an up-to-date young m'.n as Mr Pryor. I remember the restaurant and tea-room employers making much the same wail when their industrial conditions were under consideration, but one of thrift Tvi’r, sworn that his business would be mined was hono°t enough to admit ftevin the nnbl’o nrc*® that the award which contained provisions for a 60 '■ ■» -,. r v.w'V i7ot h J s business in T have not. +b*>.slightest-'douh* ns -Mr' Prvor °ta*es. “tho orfyn-r hn*o' I *"e r *''r« ere. genera) It* sneaking. • descrying** and'. remitaVe hot tb* ran bo b-i.M nf fbrwe wb-o worV for tv, &m and ■ who bfl.ve been wnplw of bf'+to** treo^rnent■ than ba« ken to then in the past. Knd, it not been bo tbrr, hove be«»n ho need of legislation. Vt, the same time-1 know of emnloaers who rJ o not work their emplovees as many hours as are fixed by the amending Bill.—l am. etC " JOHN' TIAER, Secretary Canterbury Hot eh and Bestnurant Emnloyces Union. Legislative Council, December Ist, 1910.

fMr Pryor’s letter, referred to by our correspondent, appears on pa^a. 10.—Ed.l >> f