HOURS OF LABOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7974, 4 December 1911, Page 6

HOURS OF LABOUR

It. seems that Mr Herdman finds reason to complain of having been misrepresented by this paper on Saturday regarding an "eleven hours day.” Ho says ho did not suggest tho advantages of eleven hours’ work when speaking at Wadestown on Friday night; that it was scandalous for us to say he was in favour of eleven hours a. day for the Civil Service. Wo very willingly give Mr Herdman the space in our columns necessary for his explanation, and this will be found in to-day’s report of a meeting he addressed on Saturday evening. There, however, remains something to bo -said in reply. First, it was not stated by us that Mr Herdman was in favour of eleven hours a day for the Civil Service. What we did say was that "ho refrained from making it clear whether the eleven hours a day should extend to the service.” Secondly, if he did not suggest tho advantages of eleven hours’ work for someone wo find it difficult to know what he. did suggest. Replying to a question regarding the Shops and Offices Act, he said, “If tho pay was high no great injury could be done by working eleven hours a day. A good deal of nonsense was talked about these things.” The specific reference was, of course, to tho hours worked by hotel and restaurant employees, Mr Herdman’s case being that the exigencies of special industries demand longer hours than are worked in other callings. To that extent Mr Herdman’s reference to eleven hours a day was limited—to these industries the advantages of eleven hours :Work confined. If we led anyone to suppose that he advocated a general application of the principle to all workers we most certainly did our friend an injustice.' This would bo rather more than was intended by an article written in a tone of gentle ridicule, which it is a little surprising to find the gentleman it referred to taking with such intense seriousness.