Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

EIGHT HOURS DAY

WASHINGTON CONVENTION WHY BRITAIN HAS NOT RATIFIED IT (Rec. February 28, 5.5 p.m.) London, February 27. In the House of Commons, in committee on the civil estimates, Mr. Shaw (Minister of Labour in the late Labour Government) moved a reduction iu the vote as a protest against Britain’s nonratification of the Washington eight hours convention. He declared that Britain’s failure to honour her bond had torpedoed the convention. Mr. FL B. Betterton, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, replying, said the reason the Government had not ratified the convention, despite the fact that 95 per cent, of the people in Britain worked only fortyeight hours per week, was that existing industrial agreements affecting hundreds of thousands of British workers would be imperilled by the ratification of the convention as it was at present drafted. If the Labourites really wanted to secure the position of the workers throughout the world, they would support Britain’s efforts to amend the convention, which was at present variously interpreted in different countries. 'Sir Arthur Steel Maitland, in closing the debate, said there was never any obligation on the part of the Government to ratify the convention, so that there could not be anv question of breach of faith. It was clear the Labour Party wished to ratify the Washington Convention as it now stood. Mr. Shaw, interrupting, indignantly denied this. Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland: “llien I do not know where Mr. Shaw stands. A forty-eight hour week would be illegal in many industries under any domestic legislation founded on the Washington Convention.” If we pressed for a revision, he did not think there would be any fundamental difference between ourselves and France. The motion was defeated by 214 votes to 98, and the vote was agreed to.— A.P.A. and “Sun.”

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19280229.2.93

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 11

Word count
Tapeke kupu
298

EIGHT HOURS DAY Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 11

EIGHT HOURS DAY Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 11

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert