SHINGLE SALOON ABUSES ALLEGED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17831, 27 April 1926, Page 5

SHINGLE SALOON ABUSES ALLEGED.

GIRLS PAY TO LEARN TRADE; DISCLOSURES MADE IN AWARD CASE. Whether shingling has brought female workers in toilet saloons in competition with men hairdressers, or men into competition with the women workers, was discussed at a sitting of the Conciliation Council this morning. The occasion was a dispute between the Christchurch Hairdressers’ and Tobacconists’ Assistants’ Union and local employers. Messrs L. V. Brian. F. Creswell and R. A. Campbell represented the employers, and Messrs G. H. Perkin, John Barry and John S. Barnett the union. Mr W. H. Haeger, Conciliation Commissioner, presided. After the clauses in the agreement in connection with male workers only had been dealt with, the council came to consideration of a special section devoted to the claims made by the union with regard to women workers. Detailing the position of the employers. Mr Creswell said that the employers had counter-proposals to make to all the clauses submitted by the union. He held that the women workers were not in competition with the men’s work but vice versa. Shingling had brought this position about, but there was no means of telling how long shingling would last. It might go out at anytime. Apart from shingling, the work done in the women’s saloons was chiefly in connection with complexions, face massage, medical treatment of the scalp and so on. If shingling was given up, it would not matter much. “ The first cut on women’s hair,” he went on. “is usually done in men’s saloons after which women get periodical trims at the female establishments, which are not worth much to these places.” In quite a lot of saloons the principal business was complexion and hair treatment. The girl workers laboured under abuses. “ Appointments for treatment were made up to all hours of the night by women who could manage it. That'is one of the abuses which we want the union to help us get over. The rates of wages that are suggested for female workers are higher than under any court order in existence.” “We used to regard shingling as a profession; you gentlemen have made it a trade, "and it comes under the status of an industry. We ask you to accept our proposals. Unless we get a fair consideration on our counterproposals, we retain the right to withdraw the whole of them, and apply to the Court for exemption.”

Discussing in particular the suggested clause with regard to the proportion of apprentices to journeymen, Mr Creswell asked the union to cut that clause out of the agreement altogether. He asked them to agree to an unlimited number of apprentices. His reason was that the industry was so young. It had not had time to train any' number of girls, and under the present circumstances many of the girls learning the work soon gave it up when these “bright young men” came along and married them. Mr Hagger: The definition of “female workers” should be clearer. It might mean female workers in men's saloons.

Speaking for the union, Mr Barnett said that the general position appeared to be that the women workers should be paid the same as the men.

“We are now in an awkward position through having had these counterproposals submitted to us,” he said, “for we are not familiar with them. On behalf of my colleagues and myself. I Can promise the employers a reasonable consideration.” Mr Barnett admitted that there were abuses in connection with the working conditions of the female workers. There were certain reputable firms in Christchurch. he said, whose businesses were so well conditioned that they never gave the union any anxiety- when they took up female workers. The first impression that the union got on the question of the desirability of taking a part with women workers, was that there were certain gross abuses current-

“The first young woman I met,” he said, “was employed at one ladies’ parlour, at I no salary, and she paid £3O to learn the business, ; which she was to do in a few months. The lady who..employed..her..closed down and left ' the girl with no inkling of the business which she was supposed to learn, and she lost the £3O that she had paid. Other cases have come under vnv notice. In view of that fact, and the growth of the number of lady- employers, who are coming into competition' with our business, we really want a settlement.”

- Sopie portion of the ladies’ toilet saloon work, continued Mr Barnett, was almost identical with that done in the men's saloons. For instance, the vF brating in men’s saloons was almost identical yvith the work done to ladies’ faces. He cfcimed that the men do the job better than many of the girls who were being imposed upon by the people who understock to train them in a few months. He submitted that ladies’ work does come into competition with men's, and the competitors were the people who ran the parlours. In conclusion, he admitted that the original work of the toilet parlours' was quite different to what it is now. The union assessors negatived the employers’ proposal to cut out the clause dealing with a fixed proportion of apprentices to journeywomen employed in a saloon. Mr Campbell pointed out that, as Mr Creswell had said, the clause was impracticable. because there were no journeywomen in the toilet saloons yet. The industry was too young to have produced any. The only- approach to journeywomen were the employers. If the clause came into operation immediately. the employers would have to tlisrmiss all hands.

At this stage the employers presented their counterproposal to the women workers’ wages clause, as fol-

Fifteen shillings a week, first year; £1 10s a week, second year; £t J7s 6d a week, third year; £2 os a week, fourth* vear; £3 a \yeek. fifth year.

The #union’s offer 1 was-Fifteen shillings, first year; £1 os, second year; £1 15s, third year; £2 15s, fourth year; £3 15s, fifth year.

The Court deferred further consideration of the matter until after the lunch adjournment.

Mr Creswell said that the making up of plaits was a lost industry as far as the present day shopman was concerned.

Mr Creswell suggested that where men be dealt with the operator should be placed on the basis of men, but objections to this were raised.

(Proceeding.)