SHOPS AND OFFICES BILL.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 3625, 23 August 1901, Page 3

SHOPS AND OFFICES BILL.

The evidence taken by the Labour Bills Committee of the Legislative Council in connection with this bill has been presented to Parliament. In view of the severe criticism, to which the bill has been subjected, the evidence of-Mr Tregear, the head of the Labour Department, will no doubt be read with more' than ordinaryinterest. At the outset the chairman of the committee told Mr Tregear that it had been suggested that the words "or occupier" should be inserted in clause 3, with a view to preventing small shops from being kept open. To this Mr Treear replied: "It is quite a new idea' to me, sir, and I should think it is a question whether you are interfering with the liberty of the subject or not. If it was proposed that the occupier should not keep Ms shop open, I do not see any objection, but I do not think that the occupier should not be allowed to be emi ployed about his own shop or business. If I was a shopkeeper I think I should very much resent the proposal that I should not be allowed in my own shop after hours." In regard to warehouses, Mr Tregear said : " I may say at once that ' I have no evidence to, show that there is any crying need for this Bill. The only reason why warehouses were included was because of the fact that some two or three years ago there were complaints made to us, especially from the more lowly-paid assistants, but I have not heard any complaints lately. It was thought that when the Factories and Shop Hours Acts were applied everyone should be paid overtime, and it was thought that men in warehouses might perhaps be asked to work all hours without being paid anything, and for that reason they were brought into line." In regard to offices Mr Tregear safd: " I utterly discredit the idea that < overtime is not worked to any great extent, and for this reason, that I cannot understand why a man who does : not make his employees work overtime should object to this provision. Some four or five years ago, as you are no doubt aware,; I- was chairman of the Boyal Commission'; set/up : . to inquire into the private benefit societies, and a great deal of evidence was taken, especially in Tegard to bank clerks, a great many of whom came to me and told me their grievances, and the excessive amount of overtime worked. They also referred to the Bank of New/ Zealand superannuation scheme, , which since that inquiry has. been put on abet- ' ter footing. I have no liesitation in saying that in a great many places the hours worked are altogether too long. I was in Napier some time ago, staying at a boarding house, and I got acquainted with a young fellow who was also staying at the same house, and who was employed in one of the banks. ■. He told me that he was going to be married next week. I said to him : " Well,, I congratulate you on the fact of your approaching marriage, but unfortunately it ends one of the pleasantest times of a man's life—that of courtship," to which he replied that it had not been so in his case. This was in February, and during the whole of the months "of" December and January he had been unable to see. his girl except on Sundays. In January of , this year I vas in Blenheim, and a young man called on me. I took him to dinner,' and in the course of conversation ,he told me that he was employed in a bank, and that for three months he had been working till midnight every night. About three weeks ago I met his brother, and asked him how; his brother iD the bank w««, and he said he had ibroken down \through heart disease brought on by overwork in the .bank. There is a lot of overtime worked in banks. Ido not know whether it is so in the big banks of the towns, but I am sure there is necessity for legislation in that respect; and I■ do not see why good employers should take exception to the bill, and do as their employees : suggest they would in the matter'of cur- ■ tailing their privileges, seeing that, the bill would not press very heavily on them. It' is very curious thai these men, the bank clerks, are so wonderfully unanimous! in their opinions throughout the colony. They are! suggesting to their employers what they (the employers) should do in the way of cutting off their holidays and privileges if this overtime has to be paid for. At a later stage the following exmaination took place, question and answer being as under:—lt was suggested to us that all shops should be shut at 6 o'clock. —lt would be a great blessing to the inspectors if that could be done, for we have very great difficulty with these people in regard to small businesses run by the owner. Take a small grocery shop, for instance, where a man employs no assistants, do you think that he should shut up also at 6 o'clock?—l think they should all shut at a uniform closing hour. If an occupier is (helped by a member of his family, would that bring him under the act?— Yes, he would have to shut his shop. Sometimes it is just a man and his wife who have a shop. His wife may run the-shop* while he does other work. If the man helps in the shop, would that bring him under the act?—No, a man and a wife are one. You say that all shops should be shut at 6 o'clock on four days in the week, at.l o'clock one day, and at 10 o'clock on the sixth day?— Yes. These small shops I referred to and Chinamen's shops are allowed to keep open until all hours of the night, are they not? —Yes I would like to see them all have to shut, as. I said, at a uniform closing hour. I think it is very unfair that a small occupier should keep his shop open when a man who employs labour has to shut his shop. Such a condition of ( things is a foe to enterprise. A man wno has sufficient enterprise to . employ another man in his business, it seems, is penalised.'; Do you not think that if these small shops were compelled to . close it mi"ht press very hardily on some poor people?—lt might. That question has been urged. ( ____