SHODDY SHOES

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 77, 27 September 1941, Page 10

SHODDY SHOES

♦THOUSANDS OF PAIRS"

(To the Editor.)

Sir,— During. the recent debate on the Standards Bill, reference was made to shoddy footwear and, to demonstrate his point, a member of the Government Party exhibited a pair of women's shoes which had cost 27s 6d (retail), and which had only been worn three weeks when they required half-soling. The insoles were of paper or cardboard, a fact which was only too obvious. An Opposition member, referring to what had been said concerning shoddy footwear and from implications gathered by himself, said: "To suggest on the evidence of one pair of shoes that New Zealand boots and shoes were shoddy was an outrageous attack on the manufacturers." It was obvious that there was nothing said which implied that New Zealand jboot and shoe manufacturers as a whole were turning out shoddy shoes, but, rather, that those who did so were well in the minority. The real interpretation gathered was that the shoes exhibited before the House were typical of thousands of pairs of shoes manufactured in New Zealand by a few manufacturers whose interests and motives were purely self. Boot and shoe repairers throughout New Zealand can verify this as the quality of the insoles of many thousands of pairs of shoes is on a par with the shoes brought before the House • and the price is not confined to 27s 6d a pair, but ranges up to as high as £2 2s.

Thousands of pairs of shoddy shoes are actually being manufactured in New Zealand every week. Thousands of pairs are being worn, whilst thousands of pairs are ready to be sold. Hundreds of pairs of shoes have to be discarded every week for the simple reason that they cannot be repaired without partially remaking, and the addition of new insoles, and this, after only three to four weeks of wear through the fault of paper and cardboard insoles and stiffeners, and, in

many cases, through the whole structure being shoddy. .

The difference in production costs between shoes with reliable insoles and stiffeners and those of shoddy material is only a matter of a few pence. Threepence to sixpence a pair would make all the difference, but this difference in the cost of production would save purchasers of footwear many pounds a year. If shoes costing, say, 30s a pair cannot be repaired and the soles,only last from three to four weeks, then the average cost per person per week for footwear is a proximately 8s a week —an extremely high rate for footwear bills. Even in cases where they can be repaired by inserting new insoles and relasting the uppers, this can only be done at extra cost, so that the shoe owner is having to pay through the nose every time.

Admittedly manufacturers of shoddy footwear are only a minority, but,; unfortunately, this practice by the few reflects discredit on the industry generally and, what is a matter of the gravest concern, if not checked, will result in repercussions on the whole of the industry if, at any time> licence restrictions are relaxed or removed. The majority of New Zealand manufacturers are endeavouring to build up a sound reputation for the industry by manufacturing boots . and shoes of quality and reliability.

The stamping on the outer-soles as provided for in the Footwear Regulations, such as "Compo," "Fibre," etc., where substitutes for leather are used in shoe manufacture does not go far enough. "Compo" can mean anything and often means only paper,/ as this, is a composition of ingredients which go to make paper. •'Compo," being an abbreviation of composition, paper, or cardboard when used for insoles or stiffeners, is safeguarded, by the Regulations.

The standardisation of footwear would bring everyone into line and, from the evidence seen every day of the week of the effect of shoddy materials used in the manufacture of footwear, it is evident that some form of compulsion is necessary to safeguard the public and the honest, sincere manufacturers, from those who are less scrupulous. The trade mark of the manufacturer who stands behind the quality of his goods is his guarantee of quality, and he has nothing to fear from standardisation. The public also should at least know what they are paying good money for, and 'they should have some guarantee that they are receiving value for their money.— I am, etc., T I. G. SHIELDS, Secretary of the Dominion Federation of Boot Trades Associations.