CONTRAST IN WAR WORK

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 27, 31 July 1940, Page 6

CONTRAST IN WAR WORK

When the German offensive in the West reached its peak, so far as Britain was concerned, in the attempt to destroy the Allied armies in Flanders, and the B.E.F. lost most of its equipment in the miraculous feat of extricating itself at Dunkirk, the first job of the new Government in Britain was to call on the munitions industry for a supreme effort to make good the loss. Under drastic powers given by Parliament and with the willing co-operation of the workers, hours of labour were increased, by more than half in some cases, and the production of munitions factories was more than doubled. The principle laid down by Mr. Ernest Bevin, Minister of Labour and National Service, in a stirring broadcast at the time, was this:

I felt, he said, that if this country had taken men from their homes, workshops, offices, agriculture, and other duties to defend our nation on the sea, in the air, and on the battlefield, then these men who had been called upon to face danger and death were entitled to receive the fullest support and to have an overwhelming power of supplies and superiority of equipment to assist them in carrying out their tremendous task.

It was because the skilled personnel required for such a terrific task was short that it was called on to Avork so long and late. "Machine tools and other instruments of production," said Mr. Bevin, "are more valuable than gold at the present time. We cannot afford that they shall be idle for one moment." So this stalwart Labour leader and his colleagues in the National Government, Mr. Herbert Morrison, Minister of Supply, Mr. Grenfell, Minister of Mines, and others concerned, threw themselves wholeheartedly into the job. of preparing Britain for defence. And they carried the trade unions with them in a complete reorganisation of the conditions, hours, and methods of production. Provision was made for the training and dilution of labour and for machinery of negotiation, of which Mr. Bevin said: "I want to ask the trade unions, and the employers, to operate this joint machinery in this crisis as trustees on behalf of the State." The agreement has been faithfully kept.

That was two months ago and the crisis then existing has passed its acuter stages. "Realising that a continuation of excessive hours of work is likely to defeat- the object of increased production for which increased hours were temporarily introduced in war industries," says a Rugby message, "Mr. Ernest Bevin has sent a series of suggestions, drawn up in consultation with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress, to all firms producing munitions and war material." The notes say that a seven-day working week of between 70 and 30 hours, if continued, will cause a "rapid decrease in individual productive capacity owing to abnormal strain." So it is necessary to reduce hours of lvork, "the ideal being a figure which will give, under existing conditions, the maximum output." Now, what is the ideal expressed in actual hours? Is it the 40-hour week adopted in ■~ this country? The Minister admits it is not easy to determine the figure, which varies, he says, according to the circumstances of different industries, but he adds: "Industrial experts are agreed that a 55-hour week is most satisfactory in wartime and likely to effect the maximum of production." The Government in New Zealand has again and again appealed for more production in wartime, but effective measures are needed to bring about the result. The contrast in organisation and effort between Britain, and this country is too glaring to admit of any airy explanation. The people of this country are ready to work if the (government will give a practical lead.