Leisure and Production

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 200, 21 May 1936, Page 6

Leisure and Production

yj r( —(ju r Government has undertaken to give New Zzealand a new economic code based on a more equitable distribution of wealth, on greater leisure, and on economic security. Good. We all want these things, but maybe we do not all agree that the legislation now before the House is faultless, aud that it does not possess any dangerous features, features which mi'ffit cause the Government’s intentions to be frustrated. I am referring to tne Factories Amendment Bill, and to the clause dealing with the hours of work. As the mechanisation of production becomes more aud more intense, man should work less and less. Greater leisure for the workers must be the order of the day. But because men work less, does it follow that machines should work less.' The 40hour week will soon become law ; the next electoral bait may be a 30-hour week. Both mean that in order to give men greater leisure, the power which has made this leisure possible is also to remain idle. The overhead expenses in an industry go on all tiie time. . Rent, rates, depreciation, interest on capital expenditure, these uro fixed charges which are neither increased nor reduced whether the working day is six, eight or ten hours, or more. This being admitted, it seems that an absolute loss is sustained when the factory remains closed for 128 hours, out or 168. It may well lie asked, is this good economy; does it pay? ' Lord Leverhulme was the first to afiirm that it did not pay, that in order to get the most out of industry, machines should be worked at full capacity, for long hours, and that there should be a relay ot workers. Take the legislation now before the House, the 40-hour week. It must inevitably both reduce production and increase cost of same. It cannot in any way create more employment. A reduction of four hours in the working week must mean a reduction of about 10 per cent, iu tho output, aud if charges are the same and the output less, prices must necessarily be higher. The position could only be nvit by working the machines at greater speed but this, I understand, the unions do nJt allow. As far as employment is concerned, it is strictly determined by the machines, which need a set. number ot workers to feed them. This numlier cannot be increased unless more machines are installed. Now let us consider a possible 12-hour day in two shifts.. There must in this case be a 50 per cent, increase in production, employment is doubled, and there is no rise in costs. The latter can easily lie demonstrated. Admitting that 1000 articles cost £2OOO to produce, the price of each article would be £2. Admitting that wages figure tor £lOOO in the cost of production when, the 12-hour day in two , ~s . h ifts Z. 8 ° operation, tiie wage bill would be £-000, the overhead expenses would remain static, production would increase by uO per cent., and therefore the cost of production for 1500 articles would lie iJOOO, or £2 each, Q.L.D. >. .l . i.nt The b’cheme hats if vine drawbacks, but nothing very serious. For instance I here would be in the immediate future a sholt-a-e of skilled labour to provide lor two shifts, but this can only be a temporary difficulty, probably very temporary. Also it may be argued that a i>o per cent. 11crease in production would be too much, tliat the supplv would out-run the demand. To this we can answer:.When our unemployed are reabsorbed in industr}, and when we produce more than, we actually need then the time will be ripe for planned immigration, this, being undoubtedly a most desirable objective. Another aspect of the question is the finance policy of. our Government It credit or money is to be created bj the Reserve Bank to implement the Government’s social reforms, this credit or money must have some tangible asset behind it. The Minister of Finance has laid stress on this point. To reduce the length of the working week is to clip the creation of these assets. The 12-hour day in two shifts, on the contrary, increases production by 50 per cent., mid thus makes it possible to meet and satisfy a much greater demand for consumable goods. 11 is. of course, obvious that there should be nothing mandatory about a scheme of this sort, because it is only applicable to hi"hly-mechanised industries, but on the other band there should be, no barrier erected to prevent its being tried. Such a barrier exists in the Factories Amendment Bill, whieh says: “No woman or boy shall be employed between the hours of t> p.m. and 8 a.m.” If these few words were added, “Except in such factories where the 12-hour day in two shifts operates,” it would make all the difference in the world. I believe I bat in any ease working in relays is bound to come, and that the sooner it conics tile better. Its effect on employment is probably its most weighty claim to urgent consideration.—l am, etc., M. IRWIN. Auckland. May 18.