The Dominion. THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1936. INDUSTRIAL ADJUSTMENT

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 200, 21 May 1936, Page 8

The Dominion. THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1936. INDUSTRIAL ADJUSTMENT

The Minister of Labour, in his reply yesterday to the third reading debate on the Factories Amendment Bill, frankly confessed doubt about the usefulness of clause eight, which reads: No person who is employed in any factory at. the commencement of this Act shall he dismissed nor shall the wages of any such peis< reduced bv reason merely of any reduction or alteration made in his working-hour, pursuant to this Act. Where any such person ( is> or the wages of any such person are reduced after the commencement of this Act the burden of proving that the dismissal or reduction, as the case may be was not a breach of the provisions of Ibis section shall be on the occupier. “The occupier” is the employer. There is a similar clause in the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill, and Mr. Armstrongs coiuts may be presumed to extend to it. He would be helping industryemployees and employers alike—if he were to have both clauses deleted in the Upper House. Speaking of that in the Factories Amendment Bill, he said he did not know if it could very well be enforced. There were, he explained, some dishonest employers who would victimise workers, but if an employer were dishonest he would lie about it in any case, and the court might have difficulty in establishing the reason why men were dismissed. In his anxiety to pi even “victimisation,” the Minister seems not to have realised the much more far-reaching effects of the protective clause. . Victimisation is an act of retaliation, and no employer m nis right senses is going to vent his opposition to the forty-hour week in splenetic dismissals. But he will have to adjust his business to the new conditions created by the Government s labour legis ation. Indeed Mr. Armstrong virtually commands employers to do so 1 lie criticism that the Bill will increase costs to industry is, he says, “threadbare and will not stand examination. Industry has had to adjust itself to changes in the past, and must do so again. the suggestion here is that adjustments can be made which will offset the increased cost of higher wages and shorter hours. There are four ways in which that might be done: (a) by making equivalent savings elsewhere in the business, as in rents, prices paid for raw materials, or prices paid for power; (b) by diverting to wages, earnings at present absorbed by payments to reserve, to depreciation fund or to profits; (c) by raising selling prices; (d) by extending the mechanisation of the factory to give an increased output per unit of labour employed. But there is little hope of. equivalent savings when the general price-level is rising; very few (if any) businesses are in the happy position of being able to meet the increases ftom existing profits: the Minister is talking about fixing selling puces, and this “victimisation” clause seems to be designed to checkmechanisation. Yet Mr. Armstrong says to industry, ‘ Adjust yourself!” How is it to be done? \ The progressive course is that of mechanisation. Machinery may displace workers temporarily, but it reduces costs, thereby in most cases increasing turnover and creating a market for more labour. On public works Mr. Semple hopes to.. replace the wheel-barrow by the steam-shovel, which will enable him to do the same amount of work with fewer men. That is not victimisation, it is. progress; and the prosperity which follows in the wake of progress will reabsorb the displaced men.