DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9372, 15 February 1909, Page 2

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

THE WORKER’S POINT OF VIEW.,

Mr A. E. Wilson, hon. secretary of the Christchurch Domestic Workers’ Union, writing to the Lystelton Times, on the question of domestic service in New Zealand (apropos of the letter of Mr T, E. Taylor, M.P., to the Hon. Geo. Fowlds) says: “It sejama to ns ridiculous to expect immigration alone to settle the problem of houseservice in this country. If Europe could supply thousands of girls for this purpose numbers of employers would still be in trouble, because immigrants must be composed of two classes, viz,, the qualified and the inefficient. Under the present conditions the qualified girl comes out (perhaps to friends or relations) mainly because Jshe is dissatisfied with the conditions of labour in her own land, fully expecting muon better times in New Zealand. The independence of character which helps this girl to break away from her own country will not allow her to accept bad conditions, even for the privilege of living in New Zealand ; many capable girls having tried some months of service here have experienced no difficulty in getting into the factories _ where their hours of work are limited by the Factories Act, and they enjoy the comradeship of the workroom. This, in spite of the fact that wages are decidedly lower in the factory for this class of worker than in service. High wages entice girls into service, but will not‘always suffice to keep them there. Overtime, when it is remunerative, is sometimes welcomed by workers with a specially pressing need, but high wages will not compensate any girl for working long hours for a hopelessly indefinite period. The inefficient girl is not [wanted here, not always because she cannot learn, but there is usually no one to teach her. So few employers nowadays are trained in housekeeping methods, and the incompetence of the employer and her assistant will result in an uncomfortable household. Indeed, the want of knowledge of housekeeping amongst employers now is the reason many qualified girls leave places that Otherwise were bearable. A girl who works according to some method will always resent unnecessary interruptions in her morning’s work. “We also sympathise with the mothers who cannot obtain efficient assistance in their homes, hut the dearth of domestic labour is the natural consequence of the treatment meted out to ‘servants’ for the last few generations by the majority of ‘masters and mistresses.’ The employers are not the only women whose health suffers from an overdose of housework. We hear, not infrequently, of households where the mother and one or two daughters find the work too heavy and tiresome. They manage by an evasive account of the little work there is to do to obtain a girl, and the result within a fortnight' is that the work which was too much for three women, has been entirely passed over to the one unfortunate ‘general.’ We know that there are reasonable employers. We have found a few in Ohristoburoh. but these are not obliged to advertise, every fortnight for cooks, laundresses, house, and parlour maids. It is the unreasonable or thoughtless employer who helps to swell the advertisement columns of the daily newspaper. The union has always looked forward to a training college, but a girl’s claim to humane treatment should noc depend on the quality of her cookery certificate. We cannot expect yonng girls to spend one year in qualifying for a position that may mean as at present 13 or 14 hours’ work per dav for an unappreciative household.”