{
Executive, Clerical & Computer Staff): I am here in the hope that Congress, having heard the very genuine expression of concern about the fate of women at work in this country with regard to the future of protective legislation, will listen to the word of a representative of women who are not now covered by such legis- lation; for example, women working in our national airlines who are strong trade unionists and have fought and won conditions which they would not wish to surrender automatically in favour of any piece of additional protective legislation. I suspect that the miners, engineers and others who might be given such extended legislation might want to say, "Just a minute. Let's look at this and see whether it is the best thing for working people, men and women, in our industry".
I could not bring myself to say to this Con- gress that it would be a good idea to defeat this proposal. What I would like to suggest to you is that it might be remitted for careful examina- tion in the light of the risks that I think we might be getting committed to accepting if it were simply carried without the kind of careful inspection which in the interests of our mem- bers is vital. I hope therefore that a means will be found for this proposal to be remitted so that it can he dealt with in the light of the interests of the workers, group by group, industry by industry, law by law, and indeed of free trade union collective bargaining.
Mrs. C. M. Patterson (General Council): In answering Rita Stephen first, I think perhaps she did not quite hear what Alec Smith said at the end of his speech. I was quite clear in my mind that he gave the caveat that he is not pressing for all categories of women to be covered by the protective legislation. This is certainly the position of the General Council. With this very clear reservation, I have been asked by the General Council to give positive support to this motion and to ask Congress to give it positive support also. The General Council have been quite clear in their evidence to the EOC and to the Health and Safety Commission. The TUC position is unequivoc- al. We will not support any reduction in protec- tion for the 11⁄2 million women workers who are covered by the Factory Acts, and we will support the extension of that protection to men in industry.
On the other hand, the majority of the EOC believe that equality should be achieved by repealing the hours of work provisions of the Factory Acts, and that is why their report has been so enthusiastically welcomed by the CBI and employers' organisations. And no one here surely believes that they are the champ- ions of equality for women. No, they have been wanting for years to exploit women on
shifts and on night work in the same kind of jobs as women are currently working in- and so much in the main for equality of opportuni- ty! Repeal would mean carte blanche on the other hand to every sweat shop in Camden Town, in the Black Country and throughout the British Isles; and women in industry know this. Those women who least favour a change in the law are the least likely to be prepared to work shifts and are those most likely to be affected by change. Those are the full-time women manual workers. The EOC should have listened to the voice of their experience. Indeed, the whole philosophy of the EOC is at fault. Equality is not about equalising down- wards. We could have had equal pay in 1888 if we had brought the men's rates down to the women's. That is purely technical equalisa- tion. Unless the EOC begins to understand that equality is about bringing the worse up to the better, raising aspirations and fighting for even better conditions, then it will be rightly endangered. Yet, frankly, that is something we do not want to see happening.
The TUC has of course circulated the EOC's report to all unions for their detailed com- ments, and I am sure these will be vigorous. The Health and Safety Commission currently has the report, and that is a body with a great deal of industrial experience, unlike the EOC. The TUC members on that commission will not support any proposals on consultations until detailed union comments have been received and considered by the General Coun- cil. I hope that Congress will unanimously endorse the TUC's position to date. This will help strengthen the hands of our members on the Health and Safety Commission. By carry- ing Motion 26 Congress will be leading the campaign to resist repeal of the legislation, for such repeal would represent a major attack on the position of women manual workers. ★The motion was CARRIED,
Fire and Health Hazards Mr. W. Barber (Fire Brigades' Union) moved the following composite motion:
Following the tragic fire at Woolworth's Store, Manchester, where ten people lost their lives. Congress is alarmed by the ever- increasing fire and health hazards to both workers and the general public caused by the substantial increase in the volume of polymer-based materials that are being used in place of traditional materials, formerly used in the manufacture of furniture, fur- nishings and the construction of domestic and commercial buildings,
Congress considers that the proposed regu- lations that will require all upholstered furni-
480
}
is
T
e.
el
E EST LE SECES
ar
ha
CC
to
CC
W:
pr
m.
us
pr
of
tun
re
ho
itic
leg
tio
wh
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.