The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1942. Occupational Re-Establishment

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23801, 21 November 1942, Page 4

The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1942. Occupational ReEstablishment

The Minister of National Service, the Hon. A. McLagan, has reminded employers that their obligation under the Occupational' Re-estab-lishment Emergency Regulations, 1940, to reinstate former employees released from military service applies to women as well as to men. The regulations referred to are just and necessary; and the Minister is wise to call attention periodically to the obligations they impose on employers and the rights they confer on employees. But it is also necessary that the Government on the one hand and employers and employees on the other should recognise frankly that the more completely New Zealand is mobilised, militarily and industrially, the smaller is the contribution such regulations can make to a solution of the vast problem of post-war rehabilitation. In the past, there has been an unfortunate tendency to assume that the regulations are a major contribution to solving this problem. But it is only necessary to read the regulations carefully to see that there are formidable legal and industrial difficulties in the way of applying them rigidly. Under the impact of war, New Zealand’s industrial structure is changing rapidly. Certain industries are growing with mushroom rapidity while others are dwindling; rationalisation and zoning are reducing the number of independent units; and new industries are being created. Though not all of these changes will be permanent, it cannot be expected that after'the war New Zealand industry will revert to the pre-war pattern; and that being so, the Occupational Re-es-tablishment Emergency Regulations will have a limited value as a means of ensuring the reabsorption of men and worrten in the services in civil employment. Moreover, too rigid enforcement of the regulations will in some instances defeat their purpose by imposing on industries costs they are unable to bear. There is also a certain danger in making employers too conscious of their obligation to reinstate employees who are now on service with the forces. The great need of the moment is that labour should be mobile and that industry should be flexible in responding to war needs. But the employer who is asked to take part in a rationalisation scheme or to expand his business to meet war requirements may well be deterred by the thought that, by so doing, he will be piling up difficulties for himself in the post-war period. The right of employees on service with the forces to reinstatement in their pre-war employment when they are demobilised is, it should be repeated, -\ necessary right, but one which cannot be universally enforced without .damage to industry. The basis of rehabilitation policy should not be this right of reinstatement but the assumption that after the war there will be work for all men and women at rates of pay in accordance with their ability and qualifications. For any country which has learned the lesson •of war economics, the bogy of unemployment can have no terrors. And for a country as underpopulated as New Zealand is, the great problem of the post-war period should not be to find work but to find workers.