NEEDS AND HOURS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIII, Issue 114, 16 May 1942, Page 4

NEEDS AND HOURS

When the 40-hour week was first introduced the Labour Government's case was based on two main arguments —it would absorb the unemployed and thus act as a palliative for depression and it would provide workers with greater opportunities for leisure. Today, under war conditions, the first argument no longer applies; in fact, the position has been completely reversed. As the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce points out in its latest bulletin: "It is not now a matter of adjusting production to a temporarily limited capacity for consumption, but of extending production to meet, as far as possible, a capacity for consumption greatly increased by the demands of war." Anything that hampers

lliat extension is impeding the war effort. It is true that in a number of industries the 40-hour week has been extended by agreement, but this has involved the payment of overtime rates, which have increased costs and, because of their penal nature, may, in certain cases, have limited production

Limitation of production, as the bulletin points out, applies particularly to goods and services for which prices have been fixed, as the fixed prices do not cover the payment of overtime, without which the goods and services cannot be produced. It is not suggested that overtime should be eliminated, but at a time of national emergency, when production is a vital war-winning factor, it is unreasonable and, indeed, against the public interests to impose overtime costs -for every hour worked over 40. To adopt the words of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce: "A legal limitation imposed in times of peace, which impairs the war effort and the standard of living, strains the public finances and makes avoidance of inflation more difficult, surely stands in need of immediate

revision