P
Paypre pl
pl. ~
Reference.....
Mr. Foggon
(Overseas Labour Adviser)
Stewart (Hong
氨
Thank you for your minute of 19th January.
I appreciate from para 10 of your 1967 report that you found the programme to reduce the hours inadequate. However I regret that I do not think that what you wrote in your report is a good basis on which to raise with Hong Kong now the matters you wish to draw to their attention. I should be grateful if you would consider the following points:-
(a)
As you say yourself, an increase in overtime was an expected result of the phased reduction of working hours. Shall we not invite the answer, "What else did you expect?"
(b) You said in your report that "the aim of policy must be to reduce overtime
at the end of the transitional period.
* But what we appear to be doing is aiming at a reduction of overtime before the transitional period ends.
(c) Admittedly you said in your report that it would be valuable to analyze the incidence of over- time at the end of each 12 month period and report to this office. But if our objective is to reduce overtime when the transitional period is complete surely those reports from Hong Kong will only be useful after the transitional period. You go on to say that if many employees do not use the full permitted range of overtime then an earlier oppor- tunity should occur to review overtime maxima. But what we are up against here is a full use of the permitted range.
I see from our file HWB5/6 that this same question was covered by the Commissioner of Labour in his comments on your report. Hong Kong's point of view then was that even at the end of the transitional period a sudden reversal of permitted
overtime would be unacceptable and impracticable.
I cannot believe that we will get away now with what Hong Kong will see as an attempt to go beyond the purpose of their legislation.
I may have misunderstood the position, but I should be grateful for your furth er comments in the light of these observations.
K245. H.H. STEWART
Hong Kong Department
974670
Ener