TNAG-0089-FCO40-125-Social-welfare-working-conditions-in-Hong-Kong-1968 — Page 50

Fédération Internationale des Travailleurs des Industries

du Textile et de l'Habillement

PRESIDENT:

JOHN E. NEWTON

VICH-PRESIDENT:

K. BUSCHMANN

Internationale Textil- und Bekleidungsarbeiter-Vereinigung

Internationella Textil- och Beklädnadsarbetarefederationen

INTERNATIONAL TEXTILE AND

GARMENT WORKERS' FEDERATION

120 BAKER STREET, LONDON, W.1

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

3-

TELEPHONE: WELBECK 1745

TELEGRAM ADDRESS:

WORKINTEX, London, W.1

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 all political questions to the Hongkong Trades Union Council. The latter body was in complete agreement with this point of view. Action since my visit to Hongkong:

Having 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 Council of the International Textile & Garment Workers Federation, the British Garment and Textile Unions requested an interview with Mr. Fred Lee, M.P., the then Colonial Minister. At this interview, which took place on June 21st 1966, Mr. Lee said ' I fully expect that new labour legislation will be introduced in Hongkong during this

summer'.

At a subsequent interview, I reminded Mr. Lee of his statement, and he modded his head in agreement. I mention this because I am now informed that the official record of the interview on June 21st 1966 quotes Mr. Lee as saying 'I 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 Čouncil, I personally wrote down the exact words used by Mr. Lee so that there would be no error.

However, it is no 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 statements. In a letter to me dated April 7th 1967, I find the following amazing paragraph:-

11

.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 examined, 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 undertakings in those industries in line with common practice'.

I immediately wrote to Mrs. 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.