THE 40-HOUR WEEK

Evening Star, Issue 23065, 17 September 1938, Page 3

THE 40-HOUR WEEK

BLESSING DR CURSE ? [By Ilov Sherwood.] In theory the 40-hour working week has only one fault. It is too long. And no one can say as yet by how many hours it is too long. In practice it is a failure in tho two European countries which have tried it, because it is too short. When tho International Bureau of Labour of tho League of Nations recommended the 40-hour week as tho most urgent reform of our time the recommendation had the backing of the specialists who had studied world labour and economic conditions at Geneva. In spite of that most of the leading nations of tho world failed to turn the recommendation into national labour laws to be applied to their own countries. Russia and France did not fail. But in neither country is the law successful enough to be enforced universally. « • « • Russia, of course, has no unemployment problem in tho sense in which Western countries know that trouble. Her problem is to organise the_ undeveloped resources of a vast territory for the benefit of her people. She has so much that she does not know even a quarter of all she possesses. There is enough work, and more than enough, in the country for all Russians to be fully employed in simply converting raw material into railways, power stations, factories, productive machinery, houses, furniture, clothing, and all the other things needed for a growing civilisation. And she was so far behind in these things when the present regime started that, if every available head and pair of hands were to work 60 or 70 hours a week instead of 40, it would perhaps take a century or more for Russia to draw level with the rest of Europe, and to have to invent less necessary forms of work. Tho 40-hour week' remains law, in slightly different terms of detail. But the arch-enemies of were the first to make overtime practically universal—as they were also the first people to give national statns_ and propaganda to a competitive efficiency system. While the Labour unions of capitalistic countries are denouncing Bedeaux measuring of competent work units (which are not competitive) Russian Stakhanovites have spread labour competition all over the U.S.S.R, For all this there are good reasons. There is to begin with natural impatience to have done with the discomfort of all-round shortage. When the common lot could be improved by all working a little longer, it was right that this means of ensuring quicker improvement should be used. At a work output of 40 hours a week per head it would have taken a century or thereabouts to provide Russia with _ the means to defend her national territory against possibleMuvasioii in addition to giving her the comforts of modern civilisation. If it takes an average European worker five minutes to_ do a certain job a Russian needs six or seven, when he does not need eight or nine. So there are two final causes for the breakdown of the 40-hour week in Russia—the backward condition of tho country and military need.

These reasons do not apply to France. Her war damages were repaired long before the 40rhour week was thought of, and she: was fully armed before either Germany or Italy, the only two countries to come under consideration, presented the least danger to her security. With her the 40-honr week was purely, a social and economic measure. _ She adopted it in the hope of relieving growing unemployment. Less than two years ago she was volubly proud of her progressiveness. Since then more than one Cabinet has fallen as the direct or indirect result of the 40-hour law. Now there are so many exemptions and reservations that, for practical purposes, the law may be held to have been cancelled for a , considerable part of France’s working world. The great argument in its favour is that, apart from the morally helpful effect of fairer distribution of- the amount of work available, it will increase the purchasing capacity of the masses, and that their greater and more widespread ability to buy things will help to accelerate economic recovery. ' . . In practice, however, it was soon found that the costs of production increased so much that French exports suffered because the goods became too. dear for international competition, and internal prices went up above the purchasing capacity of the workers. Those who had employment worked shorter hours for the same money, but they ( were worse off than they had been before. And there were more people now clamouring for readjustment,' because, more being at work, there were more to realise that even the fully employed worker could not make both ends meet. And they had more time free in which to voice the growing discontent. At no time since the passing of the law has the increase in the cost of living been less than between _ three and four times as much as the increase in wages. And although that is . partly due to the fall of French currency on the international exchange, that fall itself, brought about by French capitalists exporting their money, was the result of capitalistic fear of the 40-hour week. Every decline in French currency compelled an adjustment of wages. But the , adjustment. never keeps step either in speed or in extent with the currency’s fall. The 40-hbiir week has been practically “exempted” out of existence m France, because it impoverished the country; and of that impoverishment by far the largest share had to be borne by the working class. An increase in retail prices of 15 per cent, is natural and inevitable as the result of the 40-hour'Week.' Everything beyond that is either profiteering or due to indirect effects, of which tho workers become the first victims.

As far as Europe is concerned, the most that can be said _is that the 40-hour week remains in the . early stages of experiment. But •it has already proved two things beyond all doubt. It will harm the worker m any country that adopts it, unless that country is independent of exports which have to compete with other nations, and independent too of any need to import things which it cannot pay for by a natural excess of gold or cheap raw produce—or unless the law is adopted at the same time by all countries which are in normal international competition. Secondly, it will V> e practical standard of living of the individual worker unless means can be found to prevent the increase of retail prices above the 15 per cent rise directly necessitated by the operation of the reduction in hours itself. (World Copyright Reserved.)