WORKING HOURS

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 56, 7 March 1944, Page 6

WORKING HOURS

REPLY BY MINISTER A reply has been made by the Minister of Supply and Munitions (Mr. Sullivan) to Mr. A. O. Heany, secretary of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, concerning the question of extra working hours, the subject recently of a reference in the House by the Minister followed'by a letter to "The Post" by Mr. Heany. "In the Press statement issued by the Associated Chambers of Commerce on February 23," states the Minister, "there was a criticism of the statement of the Controller of Man-power that 'unless employers and employees in the clothing industry agree to work overtime then they will be compelled to do so.' "After arguing that extra hours worked in factories were unprofitable because of overtime rates of pay, the statement proceeded: 'As the problem is therefore one of securing more man hours at an economic cost a logical argument could therefore be advanced in favour of a universal reversion from a 40-hour week to, say, 44 hours a week, that is to say, an employee's total weekly wage would become the same for 44 hours as it previously was for 40 hours. ... By this means . . . four "hours' extra work would be obtained for nothing so that costs and prices would fall.' "Admittedly the statement went on to say 'There is a middle course and that is an extension of working hours from 40 at time rates to 44 at time rates.' Nevertheless, I think you must admit that my statement in the House was correct and that the Associated Chambers of Commerce had in fact advocated as a reasonable and logical argument a .system whereby a worker's 'total weekly wage would become the same for 44 hours as it previously was for 40 hours.' "If there is any misunderstanding between us it arises from my having used the term 'proposal' for a proposition which the Associated Chambers of Commerce had advanced as being a 'logical argument.'"