TNAG-0089-FCO40-125-Social-welfare-working-conditions-in-Hong-Kong-1968 — Page 41

!

Hasderation Internationale des Travailleurs des Industries

PRESIDENT.

du Textile et de l'Habillement

JOHN E. NEWTON

VICE-PRESIDENT:

"K. BUSCHMANN

Internationale Textil- und Bekleidungeerveitar-Vereinigung

Internationella Textil- och Beklädnadsarbetarefederationen

INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE AND

GARMENT WORKERS' FEDERATION

120 BAKER STREET, LONDON, WIJ

GENERAL SECRETARY: J. GREENHALGH tú whom all communications should be addressed

TELEPHONE:

WELBACK 745

T61 FGRAM: ADDRESS;

WORKINTEX, London, W.I

This clear-cut division in the trade unions results in many workers refusing to join any trade union because of the political implications. I was able to persuade the Cotton Industry Workers General Union to concentrate their efforts solely upon/ industrial matters, and to leave ali political questions to the Hongkong Trades Union Council. The latter bouy was in complete agreement with this point of view. Action since my visit to Hongkong:

#L

Elving prepared a report of my visit to India, Japan, Hongkong and Pakistan, and in view of the fact that this report would be considered by the Executive Counc fl of the International Textile & Garmen. Workers Federation, the British Garment and Textile Unions requested an interview with Mr. Pred Lee, M.P., the then Colonial Minister. At this interview, whien took place on June 21st 1966, Mr. Lee said ' [ fully expect that new allour legislation will be introduced in Hongkong during this summer'. At a subsequent interview, I ryminged Mr. Lee of his statement, and he nodded his head in agreement. I mention thig because I am now informed that the official record of the intervies on June 21st 1966, quotes Mr. Lee as saying '1 will be most disappointed if something isn't done this summer. In view of the fact that I had to report the interview of June 21st 1966 to my Executive Council, I personally wrote down the exact words used by Mr. Lee so that there would be no error.

However, it is nd use arguing about who said what and where. On February 16th 1967, along with Ernest Thornton M.P. and James Johnson M.P., I had an interview with Mrs. Judith Hart, and was favourably impressed with what she had to say.

However, in correspondence which has passed between us since then, and upon reading the replies to many questions in the House of Commons, I find it difficult to reconcile some of her statementy. In a letter to me dated April 7th 1967, I find the following zeazing paragraph: -

.The basis of such an approach would be that such orders should, in the first instance, be made in respect of industries already working an 8-hour day, thus bringing legislation into line with current practice. Thereafter, the extent to which an 8-hour day is worked in other industries should be exwninea, and, where it is the common but not the universal practice to work an 8-hour day, orders should be made to bring all industrial undertakinge in those industries in line with common practice'.

I immediately wrote to Mra. Hart protesting that this so-called legislation in fact meant that it would not apply to the garment industry, where a 10-hours day for women and young persons is the common practice.

: