Use of Manpower

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23493, 22 November 1941, Page 8

Use of Manpower

The New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation, iii conference at Wairakei, heard from Mr J. S. Hunter. Director of National Service, a statement in which, as he-said himself, he expressed a ■ personal opinion about the need for certain developments in manpower policy; but its importance was acknowledged and emphasised by the Minister for Labour, who said that he “thought Mr Hunter had interpreted the “ Government policy 100 per cent.” If that is so, some of Mr Hunter’s remarks foreshadow the possibility of bold measures to make more effective use of labour and plant. For example, he spoke of diverting labour from industries that can spare it to those that need it. This would necessitate tapering off production in some industries or plants, or even closing them down. The “ unlimited rights to transfer “ workers in industry,” spoken of by Mr Hunter, have already been taken by the Government; he foresees their systematic use. Corollaries, of course, are that workers would not be allowed to leave essential for nonessential work; that checks would be put upon age-retirements; that women, as classified under the national register to be r prepared, would be called on to reinforce the ranks of industry; that plant would be organised in production groups, orders being distributed so as to maximise output. Somewhat obscurely, Mr Hunter said that “ higher wages might have to “be curtailed,” meaning perhaps that a limit would have to be put to wage increases and perhaps that the higher rates would have to come under tax or compulsory savings levy. Finally, in spite of Mr Webb’s “ 100 per cent.,” Mr Hunter seems to have had in view the possibility that working hours may have to be extended by some swifter and more general process than piecemeal application to the Industrial Emergency Council, which the Minister still commends. It should be remembered that this is a programme under consideration, not adopted; but the Minister’s reference to it strongly suggests that most of the measures proposed, if not all, recommend themselves to the Government. As a whole, and on paper, there is much more to be said for them than against. Total war implies that sort of organisation and concentration of effort and insiststhat the means be employed. The; Government’s all-in legislation, which presupposed such action, was accepted without ‘demur, even applauded. In general, the British Government has given the New Zealand Government a. precedent for every measure ana a pattern for it, and a chance to profit by the trial of merits and faults. These things are clear enough. But they leave equally clear the danger of hasty decisions and hasty action. Mr Huntpr has reached the conclusion that it will be necessary to discriminate, soon and hard, between

essential and non-essential- industries, and has probably begun to move the Government to the same conclusion. But the Minister for Industries and Commerce has been encouraging the establishment of new industries, many of which could by no stretch of definition be called f “ essential.” If the Government adopts Mr Hunter’s plan, it runs into a difficulty which its own policy has aggravated. The policy may be modified, or reversed; it is easier to close down a factory than to establish it. But that does not solve the problem of disastrous hardship. Second, the Government may have information complete enough to enable it to classify industries, group plants, plan their co-operation, and distribute their orders. If so, it has information unsuspectedly complete. But it is another question entirely whether it is well enough served by administrative and technical experts to carry out this reorganisation smoothly and efficiently. It is another question, again, whether it has the information or the personnel to organise the labour transfers successfully. Even if the decision to close some factory is right, nothing is gained unless the workers released can be swiftly placed in work for which they are qualified or provision is made to train them. Without preparation sufficient to assure the successful working of transfer arrangements, great losses and heavy grievances will be suffered. Finally, if the Government develops its policy along the lines indicated and fails, as it too often fails, to work in consultation and co-operation with trade and industry, industrial efficiency is more likely to be damaged than increased. These are not insuperable objections to such a policy; they are warnings against haste and over-confidence in jumping from paper plans to action.