2
such extreme steps on endily gather momentum, is being explored. On May 22nd for instance, the B.B.C. in their 'Panorama' programme, delt with the riots in Hong and used filmed reports from the col ny. They showed the foot ry where the or Incl dispute started that lod to the riota and this factory was described by
ames Mossmen as being a lower tahap'.
K
For my own port, I can only deal with the workers in the textile and garment industries. From my own observations in the colony and from the regular reports of our representative in Hongkong have emerged the following facts:-
1. Many textile workers actually work on 359 days each year.
2.
3.
4.
//
When I questioned the Commissioner of Labour (Mr. Wakefield) about this, he replied that ho saw no reason why anyone should not work if they wished to work.
Women and young porgong" in the garment industry work a 10 hourg day with a permitted overtime of 100 hours per year. This is more than eny other country in the Free Vorld.
Mony„violations of the law rolating to the employment of women and young persons take place, but no the penalties are so ridiculously low, they do not set as a deterrent, for the simple reason that employers can violate the law with financial profit to himself. Thus the law itself is in disrepute.
5. During 1966, two strikes occurred at the East Asin Textiles Ltd., the
first one being caused by the employer dismissing workers for trying to form a branch of the union. This reason was changed as soon
6.
8.
es the full implications of his retion was realised. The second strike was caused by the employer dismissing a worker for absenting himself from work, due to pickņons, for just one day, in spite of the fact that this worker had worked for 359 days each year for six successive years. In the agreed settlement, the workers returned to work on the condition that if tolks on the question of 10 dismessed workera reached no agreement, both sides would accept the decision of the Commissioner of Labour on the issue. No agreement was reached, and the Commissioner of Labour unde a decision in favour of the re-instatement of the 10 dismissed workers. The employer then exhibitted his contempt for the Commissi mer of Irbour by refusing to hon ur his previous undertaking. I have not heard of any action being taken by the Commisioner of Lebour to restore his prestigo.
This shows that there are certain employers in the colony who have no respect for the in authority,
In a situation where there is no respect for the law, and where employers can flout the decision of such an eminent person as the Commissioner of Labour, it is abundantly clear that any effort to build a responsible trade union novument will be doomed to failure.
This means that the workerg, having no vote, no effective representation and no hope of obtaining justice, either have to enduro existing conditions or robel.
./..
t