STANDARDISATION FOR FOOTWEAR.

Evening Star, Issue 24003, 30 September 1941, Page 3

STANDARDISATION FOR FOOTWEAR.

T£V T OS EDITOR. Sir,— During the recent ■ debate on the Standard. Bill reference was made to “ shoddy footwear,” and to demonstrate his point a member of the Government'exhibited a pair of women s shoes which had cost 27s 6d (retail) and which had only been worn three weeks when they required halfsoling. The insoles were of paper or cardboard, a fact which was only too 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 clearly obvious to anyone listening to the broadcast debate from the House of Representatives that there was nothing said which implied that New Zealand boot 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, out ranges up to as high as £2 2s. Thousands of pairs o£ shoddy shoes are actually being manufactured in New Zealand every week. Thousands more are being worn, whilst thousands of .pairs are ready to be sold. Hundreds of pairs of shoes have to be discarded every week because they, are simply unrepairable without partially remaking and the addition of new insoles, and this after only three to four weeks’ wear, ■ through the fault of paper and cardboard insoles and stiffeners and, in many cases, through the whole of the structure being shoddy. The difference in production costs between shoes with reliable insoles and stiffeners and those of shoddy materials is only a matter of a few pence; 3d.to 6d 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 he repaired and the soles last from three to four weeks, then the average cost per person per week for footwear is approximately 8s an extremely high rate for footwear bills. Even .in cases where they are repairable by inserting new insoles and relasting the uppers, this can only be done at extra cost, so that the owner of the shoes 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 grayest concern, if not 'checked wiM result in repercussions on the whole of the industry if, at any time, import 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 of 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 wily paper and cardboard, as this is a composition of ingredients which go to make, paper. “Compo” being an abbreviation for composition, paper or cardboard when used for insoles 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 in his guarantee of quality, and l ,e 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.—l am. otC ‘‘ G. Shields (Secretary, Dominion Federation of Boot Trades Associations). Wellington, September 26.