Evening Post WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1939. CATCH-CRY REFORM

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 74, 29 March 1939, Page 10

Evening Post WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1939. CATCH-CRY REFORM

The Prime Minister has promptly replied to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for a review of the forty-hour week. Mr. Savage states: "The Government has no intention of taking any action to increase hours of labour." This reply was to be expected. Though the Prime Minister has often proclaimed his Government's willingness to correct mistakes, the proclamation has been nullified in practice by a determination not to admit that any had been made. The admission of the Government's liability to err has always been in most general terms, appearing rather as a demonstration of modesty than as an acknowledgment of any specific errors. But the Government, while it may refuse to consider revision of hours, cannot completely side-step Mr. Hamilton's telling analysis of existing conditions, and particularly the anomalous conditions created by the shorter hours legislation. While there is an insistent demand for buildings, the pace at which the demand can be met is checked by shorter hours. The restriction on hours prevents full use of the labour in the country except by payment of overtime rates. And overtime increases costs just when the Government is doing its utmost to provide cheaper houses as well as more of them. The relaxation of restrictions in a particular case has aided a spectacular achievement; but steady progress is more to be desired than a single spectacular performance. A more serious anomaly, though perhaps not so strongly in evidence at present, is that to which Mr. Hamilton refers in speaking of the application of the forty-hour week. "Large sections of our people," he states, "have to work longer hours than forty a week because of the demand for the welfare of the community. Only 60 to 70 per cent, of union award workers have a fortyhour week, and farm workers have no restriction of hours." Even if this anomaly should be lessened by the extension of the forty-hour week to other groups of union workers, it would remain because of inability to apply it to the primary industries of the country. Farmer-owners and their families, instead of having their hours shortened, have found that they must work longer because costs are rising. They were promised that the guaranteed price system would cover extra costs arising from the Government's industrial policy, but when an expert committee last year advised what price was needed to ! place the farmer on an equal footing with other sections of the community the Government whittled the price down—partly by setting the opinion of the Minister of. Marketing^ on standards against the unanimous! judgment of the experts and partly* on the plea that the great deficit woul<3 endanger the system. So tlaat part of the plan has not worked out for the farmers; and it must be remembered that only one section of farming has a guaranteed price. When the anomalies are regarded, one is led to reconsider the reasons put forward for the introduction of the forty-hour week. It was said that the producers should share in the fruits of a more bountiful production system by having more leisure; but the section of producers whose hours were formerly long has less leisure rather than more. Shortening of hours, again, was to spread employment. It may have had this effect in a measure in sheltered occupations unaffected by costs, but against this must be set the handicap on industries not so completely sheltered. Some of them expanded in spite of it, but in others greater protection was demanded and now we have still more protection through import restriction. There would certainly have been a decided contraction if it had not been for the stimulating effect of prosperity originating in higher prices for our exports. Now we have shorter hours operating when skilled labour in various in-

dustries is fully employed, when the output called for is greater than available labour can supply, and when additional tradesmen must be brought from overseas. At the same time there is evidence that the workers themselves did not desire greater leisure in preference to more purchasing power. They have been willing, and even eager, to work overtime—to exchange the leisure for purchasing power-—and pressure has had to be put upon them in certain instances to discourage them from

using their spare time in working privately at their own or other trades.

These anomalies and contradictions exist, and, in face of their revela-

tion, one wonders how the forty-j hour week came to be introduced. The explanation is probably that it was a catch-cry reform. It could be so easily capitalised for political purposes, if one did not explain, or did not know, the anomalous way it would work out. It lent itself to Labour's claim that someone, capitalist or financier, was reaping a reward from twentieth-century efficiency and keeping the workers out of their share in bountiful production. Now there is a change of view evident on the part of at least some who have the responsibility of leading Labour. Only a few days ago the Prime Minister declared: Some thought all that was necessary was shorter hours and higher wages. That was the road to disaster. New Zealand's destiny depended upon production. That is an advance, but there must be a further advance, a recognition of the revealed and serious anomalies in the catch-cry reform of the fortyhour week, and at least some effort at adjustment to obtain in housing and other industries the greater production that is demanded. It is idle to say that "New Zealand's destiny depended upon production" unless the way to an economically-priced

increase is shown,