Four days work

Press, 3 November 1981, Page 16

Four days work

Sir,—From J. F. Garvey’s comments on the four-day week, it is my impression that his criticism is directed, more at the meat workers’ income, and the condensed time in which they earn it, than a concern for the consumer. I am quite certain he is unaware of how a slaughterman earns his daily bread. For his edification, a slaughterman is a contract worker. His income is derived from his physical ability and expertise in the use of a skinning knife. He has to maintain a high productivity rate acceptable to his employer, where and when it is required, so that his products are processed and packaged to their best advantage. The fact that most of their income is earned over a five - eight months period is governed by Mother Nature.'To compare incomes on a time spent on the job basis, perhaps he would like to look at lawyers' fees. M.P.s' salaries, etc. — Yours, etc., ARTHUR MULLIGAN. October 31, 1981.

Sir —Alan C. Willens (October 29) appears to be still confused. He states that he has no complaint about shorter working b ; 'urs but it is unethical to work four days a week and be paid for five. Why? My understanding of the Borthwick affair was that management and the unions had both agreed to a four day week using new technology which would increase production as well. How can tie then state that the meat industry is being ruined by people clinging to the past? He also talks about workers being forced to toe the union line. Possibly he is referring to a trade union refusal to allow a few get-rich-quick merchants to exploit employees by paying them sub-standard wages. I think Mr Willens is the one clinging to the past. Great days for the exploiters but not so good for the exploited.—Yours, etc., J. SHARP. October 30, 1981.