10-Friday, December 1, 1967.
it 1
South China Morning Post
1-3 Wyndham Street
Hongkong
Tel: 221011 (10 lines)
Kowloon Office
Salisbury Road
Tel: 664145
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1967
Copyright of ali contributed articles is vested in the S.C.M
Reproduction in whole or part is strictly forbidden
Att
Post Ltd
news communications and contributions as well as invitations to functions, for which press coverage is required, should be addressed to
the Editor and not to individual members of the staff
To
SHORTER HOURS FOR WOMEN
O the extent that the new regulations introduced by Mr R. M. Hetherington in Legco yesterday aim ulti- mately to bring hours of work for women in Hong- kong into line with "inter- nationally accepted stan- dards" they are welcome. The regulations have been criticised for their tardiness but we live in an impatient age. Many countries which today provide short working hours took decades to reach these desirable minimums themselves. But they expect Hongkong to telescope the process, not because of a humanitarian concern for our workers but because of the driving energy of our competitive industry. If we can maintain the momentum of production however with- out imposing severe hard- ships on the large number of marginally profitable firms there can be no objection. Dr S. Y. Chung pointed to the dangers inherent in an immediate reduction of 12 hours a week and most will agree that it is more impor- tant to keep our factories going rather than risk clos- ing some down by a too rapid rise in labour costs. This is not a fashionable view. Many would have Hongkong leap into a golden age of shorter hours overnight but while many big firms (which are also big employers of labour) are able to institute
reforms on these lines and many have already done so particularly in the textile industry textile industry smaller firms cannot. With indus- trial investment still very hesitant, it is not now the time for risky experiments and the and the gradual approach envisaged in the regulations is preferable.
on
Some commentators have queried the position of piece workers under the new regulations. Those who work at home and are paid per item made presumably do not come within the scope of this legislation, any more than housewives and domes- tic servants. There are, however, others such as pro- duction-process operatives in the spinning, weaving, gar- ments and other industries who are paid on piece rates and official clarification this point is needed. It may be wondered, also, what provision if any can be made to deal with an employer who tries to defeat the spirit of the legislation by altering wage structures or curtailing fringe benefits and bonuses for it must be accepted that if reforms like this are implemented the benefits should be fully assured. Is there any board to which workers might appeal if they have grounds for believing that employers are trying to deprive them of the benefits the law provides?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.