WOMEN’S PIN MONEY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20917, 6 January 1930, Page 3

WOMEN’S PIN MONEY.

DEPRIVING MEN OF WORK. MR J. H. THOMAS’S VIEWS. i V PROTESTS PROM WOMEN y WORKERS. ( ‘ • (From Oub Otvs Correspondent.) LONDON, November 26. According to the Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, the Lord Privy Seal, it is against the nation’s interests for women to work for what they call pin money, and so dcprive other people of legitimate work. Speaking at q meeting of the Harlescen Brotherhood on Sunday, Mr Thomas asked his audience if they had thought how many women were engaged in Indus--slX.t°^lS y doing work that men did in 1914, They would find it a substantial figure. 11 1 should be the last to say a word that could be construed as implying that am in any way unmindful of the absolute necessity of women working as well as men, but I often wonder ,how many women there are in industry who need tot be. I remember, when the railwaymen got their eight-hour day, I received complaints of men_ who, after their eight hours on the railway, worked as agriculrural labourers or cobblers in their spare tlr P, e - J. took a strong stand then, arid said I did not fight for an eight-hour day for railwaymen to ' enable them to do other men out of a job. No legislation can cure this ‘pin-money* work. Moral responsibility is the greatest factor.’* A COMPLETE FALLACY. Business women were asked to express opinion on Mr Thomas’s statement. I am sorry that Mr Thomas should have allowed himself to be responsible for such a complete fallacy,” Lady Rhondda. “It shows, I am »iraid, that he has very little knowledge ■■ a ct economics.

ridiculous to say it is against the interests of the nation for women to work. Everybody either works or is kept by somebody else. All wealth is produced by work. It is obvious, then, that the more workers a nation has, the more prosperous it will be. °^Y n experience of business is tliat very few women indeed are engaged in it on the pin-money basis. Most of Tr ?u m °rk because they need the money. 77 ■ e 3[ are married, they need money for their homes and families. If they are single they need it to support those dependent on thein—mothers, aunts, nephews, uncles, younger brothers and sisters. It is surprising how often the supporting of dependents falls to the lot W_the unmarried woman.” .v Florence Underwood, secretary of the Womens Freedom League, said: “We tamk Mr Thomas’s statement is simply scandalous. It is not for him to be an inquisitor into why a woman works. Like, the old Adam, he is just trying to blame me woman:—for unemployment." i HUSBANDS TO BLAME. The head of a large business firm in London said he was whole-heartedly against married women keeping on with their work when they could Well afford to stay at home. “It is not always easy to trace them," -he explained. “In these modern days e ?, .think nothing of leaving off their wedding ring, and continuing to call them- . Belves py their maiden names. In many cases their husbands are to blame as much as .they are. If the nian insisted on the. girl giving np her .work on marVV? 1 ?, B®’ 8 ®’ ln Eme cases out of ten she would fall m with the wish. Instead, there are r some young husbands who urge their i wives to stick to their jobs. They sav r ey i -TTV t ,^ en * 3e a^le to afford all sorts 01 Jj e . luxuries that otherwise they -would not have.” PRAISE FOR IDLENESS. The Daily Chronicle, in its leader column, comments.— i® strange to hear a Socialist advo™„i I ]L ldl f? l es 3 fo .r any section of the community. There is only one way of making wealth, and that' is by work. The person who lives without work is simnlv consuming wealth without making any contribution. Every- added person who _ pulls his or her ; own-.;weight by working and earning wages is able to spend or mo F e j and by, so doing increase erafor others. . Lord , riv y SeaTs job at the ’ foment is, not to preach idleness but to encourage every able-bodied man and woman in the country to work as hard as mey can for their own prosperity :.ad prosperity of others.”