40-HOUR WEEK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVIII, Issue 22, 27 January 1937, Page 18

40-HOUR WEEK.

NEW ZEALAND TEST. AUSTRALIAN OPINION. ■ 1 IS IT A TWO-EDGED SWORD? ■ 1 (From Our Own Correspondent.) MELBOURNE, January 20. Commenting on the 40-hour week, the " Herald" editorially* says New Zealand's " stay-in" strike illustrates the danger—to the wage-earners as well as others —of making sweeping changes in industrial conditions without understanding or guarding against the possible effects. About a thousand employees in freezing works invited dismissal by deliberately " going, slow." They were dissatisfied with an award of the Arbitration Court which denied them the 40-hour week and increased wages. The employment is somewhat irregular and it is claimed that on a rate of 25d per hour it does not enable them to earn a basic wage of £3 16/ a week. The employers felt that they could not wisely grant concessions which the Court refused. The attitude of the Labour Government towards the stoppage has yet to be defined.. Shortly after taking office the Lanour Government passed an Act legalising the 40-hour week, with qualifications. The new law provided that industrialists who thought that the shorter working week would affect their * industry adversely could apply, in association with an award or otherwise, for exemption. The weekly hours for th 6 freezing industry were fixed at 44. Differential treatment created a sense of injustice. Men employed at hard and somewhat unpleasant occupations could not see why they should work longer hours than those whose occupations appeared to be easier. They were not convinced by statements that the industry would be restricted by additional costs.

The 40-hour week was introduced in New Zealand as a means of giving employment to a greater number of workers. The trades affected in this case are those which are concerned w#th the export of meat and dairy produce, upon which the • Dominion depends largely for national income. Plainly, if the 40-hour week with higher labour costs raises the price at which thesi» commodities can be placed upon the market, the result will be a tendency to restrict export and decrease employment rather than increase it. The extent to which the 40-hour week and consequent higher costs will affect the trade is apparently not understood by the exporters, the unions or the Government. The inquiry by the Arbitration Court, it is pointed out, was not sufficiently comprehensive. The worst way. of settling the issue is a ruinously destructive strike.

New Zealand's experience is a reminder that a community cannot make considerable reductions of working hours without paying for them. They may be justified, but political wisdom suggests that the people should know the probable effects upon indusjxy and employment before the chanjle are made. Knowledge of the kind will facilitate readjustment. The Arbitration Court needs the guidance of skilled investigations by a small committee of impartial economists.