THE SHOPS AND OFFICES BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15822, 22 July 1913, Page 4

THE SHOPS AND OFFICES BILL.

The principal amendments of the existing law that are contained' in tho Shops and Offices Bill seem to be those relating to the hours of employment of assistants in liotels and restaurants. As ,it has been alleged against the Government that these proposals are retrogressive in their character, it may bo desirable to examine them somewhat in detail. The measure, it has been said in an Opposition paper, gives hotel and restaurant workers an elevenhour, day in place of a ten-honr day. This is of the,species of half-truth which is more mischievous and more unfair than a direct untruth. The statement is true so far as it goes, —that is to say, the Bill provides that an assistant in an hotel or restaurant shall net be employed for more than 11 hours in any one day,—but made baldly and without reservations, it conveys, and apparently is deliberately intended to convey, a wholly erroneous impression. Whatever the explanation may be of tho proposal to extend the possible duration of a day's work by one hour, it is not intended that the duration of the week's work shall be extended; —the prescribed maximum number of hours .remains tho same as was enacted three years ago. Moreover, a very substantial concession to the employees is offered in the Bill in tho provisions it contains in respect of holidays. In tho case of assistants who are employed exclusively in hotel baTS or in restaurants that do not carry on business on Sundays or in hotels or restaurants in which not more than three assistants are employed, the Bill provides that there shall bo a weekly half-holiday. And in the case of all other assistants tho provision of the Bill is that there shall bo a whole holiday in every week. Tho half-holidays may, by mutual agreement, be accumulated by those entitled 'to them so that, every three

months, they may havo leave of absence for seven days on full pay, and there is a corresponding provision under which a fortnight's holiday every tlvree months on full pay may he enjoyed, in lieu of the weekly holiday, by those entitled to the latter concession. These provisions extend the scope of the existing law materially and confer a very distinct boon upon the majority of the employees in hotels. A proposed amendment in the provisions of the law relating to shops has been described as " going backwards with a vengeance." The law,as it stands, admits of a certain extension of shop hours, within certain specified limits, for the purposes of stock-taking or other special work, subject to the written consent of the Inspector of Factories having previously been obtained. The Bill now before Parliament' proposes that this written consent shall be required only in the case ] of female assistants and of boys under the age of sixteen years. The presumption semee to be that, while it is necessary for the law to protect women and boys against the possibility of their being overworked, men are capable of looking after themselves, The objection to the proposal is that it • removes the absolute check which the Department of Labour now has upon the employers. And, although it" is easy to realise that the obligation to secure the written consent of an inspector in every instance when the exigencies of business call for a certain amount of overtime must occasionally be highly vexatious, the need for the assistance of some check does lend force to the objection. Apart from, this point, concerning which there is likely to be something to be said on the other side, the Bill, viewed from the standpoint of those in whose interests it is framed, does not contain any indication of the retrogression that is alleged concerning it. That its enactment will largely increase the expenses of hotel proprietors seems, on the other hand, fairly evident. Presumably they will, as far as possible, find thei* remedy in a revision of their scales of charges.