The Press. SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1906.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12484, 21 April 1906, Page 8

The Press. SATURDAY, APRIL 21, 1906.

A SIX HOURS' DAY

We do not know- what the Trades and Labour Conference thought was to be gained by passing the resolution sent over to them from Melbourne in favour of a six hours' day. The oammonrsense of every delegate present must have told him that the proposal was impracticable, and that its adoption was not likely to raise the members of the Conference in the estimation and respect of the general public. If the Victorian, workmen suffer from "that-tired feeling" to the extent of wishing to give up work altogether, they have at any rate the hot climate to urge as an excuse. Surely sturdy British artisans have not so far degenerated as a class, however, as to regard eight hours' work a day, in a temperate climate, a 6 a burden too great to be borne. Work, in

itself, is not an evil, but a very great blearing so long as the occupation in which one is engaged is fairly congenial and till© physical and mental powers are not overtaxed. Apart, however, from what w© may term the moral, or at any rate th© sentimental, aspect of tho question, the proposal to reduce the hours of labour to six a day is quite impracticable from an eoononrksal point, of view. It was argued, and with some show of reason, that an employer would get as much out of an employee working briskly for eight hours a day as he would out of a tired operative dragging through his work for ten hours. There is a l'mit, however, to this kind of reduction process. No one will pretend rliat a man could do as much in six hours as in eight, working honestly in each case. But if" the hours of work are to be cut down 2.*> per cent, the wages must be reduced in proportion. Except this is done, it will be impossible for any industry to be carried on unless prices can I© raised to meet the increased cost of production. But can

that- be doneP T_ie delegates who Voted for tie six hoars' resoration must know that it cannot. Some of the speakers frankly recognised the insuperable diffi-ouk-ieo to be faced, e_-peoia_y in regard to the oc_.p_i*km of other countries. Probably some would say that that oompetitaon nmst be shut out by inoroased duties, but fchero as also a limit to the ertent to which that sort of prooess oan be carried on. We fear that those workers who talk so glibly about inoreased protective duties and employers in-cireari-ng th© price*, do not panse to consider by whom the increased cost of goods w_ _timaiely hare to be borne. Have they ever stopped to reflect that, in th© words of a modex-n writer on eoonomics, "The great majority of " wage-earners are engaged in producing " for other wage-earners, and h_y_e' no "direct connection with the non-wage- " earning classes. The majority of " builders are building houses for wage- " earners; the very large majority in "the oJothiing trad'cs are making cloth- " in.g for the wage-earners; the majority "of food-preparers are preparing food " for the wage-earners." On the wageearners therefore a rise in prices falls with the most crushing severity. Hare we not already had practical experience of this fact in this colony? Havo wo not artificially Lnoreased prices all round by our protective dirties and labour legislation, and is it not tho universal complaint of the working man that owing to the inoreased cost of living he is no better off than he used to be ? It is a pity that the leaders of the Labour party do not look a little further ahead, and bring down proposals of a really practical kind for the benefit of their clafls. In allowing themselves to be led by the nose by the Melbourne Trades' Hall and _mir_ititing the Conference to a resolution which they mnist know to bo preposterous, they are showing a sad want of judgment and very little regard for the true interest* of those whom they profess to represent.