WORKING HOURS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 91, 14 October 1935, Page 7

WORKING HOURS

AN AUSTRALIAN VIEW

RELATION TO PRODUCTION

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—ln' your issue of September 27 you published a statement by the Hon. William -Brooks on the "Shorter Working Week." Ido not propose to comment upon the statement, but respectfully request that you publish the enclosed speech made by Sir Frederick Stewart, Under-Secretary for Labour, Federal Government, Australia, who claims to be one of the largest em.pioyersof labour in Australia, and jwho, ,1 feel sure, is as greatly concerned with cosfs.as the Hon. WilliamBrooks.—l am, eta, •'\ ■F. CORNWELL', Secretary, ' [■'' Wellington Trades and Labour. "'■' ,' Council.. .Slightly -abridged, Sir Frederick .Stewart's speech was as follows:— i "I-regard.the matter now under discussidh as one of the most important 'items on the agenda of the conference, arid for that reason I deeply regret the attitude of the employers' group in declining to participate in the work of the committee and in the formulation of any resultant decisions. ... As : 'a result of my personal experience as one of the largest individual employers of labour in Australia, and owing to the ■Varied nature of the enterprises in which 11.am interested, I have a vision of : industrial realities quite as clear as thati possessed by any delegate of any :bf the groups represented in this conference.'; It is indeed because of that experience and because of my knowledge, of my fellow-employers that I am, emboldened to affirm that the attitude .of the employers' group! . . . does not truly represent.the. feeling of employers -as a ■whole."';:

Examining-the reasons .advanced by Mr. Oerstad/who; voiced the employers' attitude, -Sir 'Frederick- said that if it were claimed that the reduction of the normal working week would, so far from • alleviating unemployment, ■aggravate it, then a reversion should logically be urged to the longer working hours, of the last century. Would Mr.. Oerstad be prepared to do this? The' fact' wa's that' ' labour-saving arrangements had so..revolutionised.in-1 diistrial practice and diminished the! necessity for labour as to change the relationship : between' wage bill and production costs. ' Mr. Oerstad's apparent exposition of the employers' attitude, that the wage bill was the \ governing factor in production costs, was not supported by analysts. In manufacturing industry, where raw materials played an important part, the reduction of working hours would not prove as burdensome as was suggested. Speaking of the textile industry as"a mill owner himself,. Sir Frederick alluded to advice since he had arrived at Geneva of a 20 per cent, increase in; materials, principally, wool,' which represented a. greater in-; crease in- final production costs than: any.reduction of hours likely to be approved. Why should the attitude to-' wards the man who sold wool be different from that towards the man who! sold labour?

"Much as we may dislike making the confession," continued Sir Frederick,."! am afraid we must admit that industry has been prone to be unpre-: pared to accord to its. workers an equitable participation .in. the benefits: .resulting from the improved technique vTvblch -has: been- such a feature :qf-4at^ ter<lay industrialism. In no previous age has the ingenuity of man been so successfully applied to the creation of labour-saving devices resulting- in-1 -alessened, and, I believe, permanently lessened, requirement for human labour. Far [from deploring this, I maintain that it would be a poorV compliment to the-Creator who gave to! man a brain-power" which distinguishes! him from the brute creation if we did j npt exploit that power to the full for the benefit of mankind. But let that! benefit be equally distributed, and it is not so distributed if the: financial gains are monopolised by patentees, by shareholders, and even by consumers,! while the workers' only participation takes the form-of an increasing volume of unemployment. Can we, if we are honest with ourselves, deny that this is -a reasonable presentation of the case?" . . I

Dealing, with the point made that, even if a convention were framed, its general observance could not be guaranteed, Sir Frederick said. that such non-conformity, if sufficiently. serious, might be an adequate reason for dispensing with a conference altogether, but was not a reason when applied to only one of a number of proposals on the agenda. A strict application of the contention that because working hours affected production costs the conference should" refrain from expressing itself on the issue would cancel most of the 44 conventions formulated at Washington in 1919. In fact the whole, work of the conference would be stultified, and even the overwhelming decision in regard' to juvenile employment would fall within the prohibition.

Stating that grave disappointment would be felt if the withdrawal of a vital section of the conference frustrated ■an effort to relieve unemployment, he said he was authorised to state that, should the majority of nations be in favour of and adopt the forty-hour .week, the Commonwealth would use its best endeavours to obtain agreement and concurrence on the part of the Australian States so that the ground might be cleared for ratification by the Commonwealth.

Remarking that the eight-hour day was introduced in Australia in 1856, and was now practically universal in industry there, and that hours of work were regulated by Courts, he said that in 1920 the Federal Arbitration Court of Australia awarded a.44-hour week to a large group of industries. "We are able to show' a progressive reduction in the working week during recent years. The nominal hours of labour in Australia during 1914 were 48.9 hours per week; in 1920, 47.07; in 1925, 46.6; while in 1933 they had fallen to 45.36.

"I appreciate that .the recent stressful times have compelled employing agencies to intensify their struggles for industrial efficiency and economy; I am afraid, however,. that oft-times this result has been achieved by asking the wage-earner to carry more than his-fair share of the necessary sacrifice. Have we not in our own experience witnessed the merging of large industrial interests, banking institutions, newspaper establishments, manufacturing concerns, and transport corporations, all designed, to reduce operating costs, principally in the direction of the payroll? We have seen this, and. we have been told of the advantages resulting from the elimination - of wasteful competition. But we have also seen the other side of the.-picture; we .have seen Jarge numbers of ■ employees turned adrift because the merging, of staffs'has rendered them redundant. By all means let us have all the.benefits of mechanisation and of rationalisation, but let the industrial worker collect his share of the benefits. It is because I can think of no more logical way of arranging this than by an appropriate reduction in working hours that the proposal now before the conference has.my fullest' commendation."