Greymouth Evening Star. TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1949. Is 40-hour Week A Success?

Greymouth Evening Star, 15 March 1949, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 1949. Is 40-hour Week A Success?

’THE Premier of Tasmania, Mr Cosgrove, is a Labour man. But that fact has not prevented him from critically surveying the results of the introduction of the 40-hour working week. He is, he says, perturbed about Ihe spirit in which the shorter week has been accepted by Australians, the chief interest of many unions now being to campaign for still shorter time on the job. Mr Cosgrove rightly holds that the 40-hour week was to have been regarded as a prize for diligence and devotion to work, bringing workers more time for physical and mental recreation. But he cannot find much evidence of the “diligence and devotion to work,” nor of appropriate gratitude for the generous gift of additional leisure. “It makes one wonder,” says this frankly disappointed advocate, “whether we were not too hasty. ’ ’ A similar examination of the shorter working week has recently been made in New Zealand by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, though he is much less harsh in his criticism than is Mr Cosgrove. Mr Holland was an ardent advocate of the introduction of the shorter hours, which remain a basic plank in the political platform of his party. What he is concerned about is making possible the. retention of • the 40-hour week. , Is the shorter week, he asks, producing enough goods and services to satisfy the reasonable needs of the people, and are they being produced at a reasonable cost? He* thinks that so far it has not done so and, if it results in a permanent shortage of essential goods, then it will have failed. It is often said by some of Mr Holland’s opponents that his aim is to destroy social security. That is, of course,, a blatant lie—typical of the smear tactics consistently resorted to by Socialist propagandists. The National Party’s declared aim is to place social security on a firm foundation. Only the politically blind cannot see that, if present economic trends continue, the whole social structure will eventually collapse—perhaps sooner than even the most realistic care to admit. The future of social security—and much more —is, of course, bound up with the success or otherwise of the 40-hour week. As Mr Cosgrove has said, “every effort should be made to retain the 40-hour week before it is too late.” As Mr Holland has said, a country’s living standards depend not on paper money, or shorter working hours, but on what that money will buy in goods and services. The prize of the 40-hour week was awarded in anticipation of its being earned. In many eases it has not been. Costs of production are accordingly higher, and the consumer must pay for them in higher prices. Few people want to see the 40-hour week go by the board, but it seems dear that if it'is to be retained steps will have to be taken to ensure that the country does not suffer unduly from it. Mr Holland has long advocated the obvious remedy—incentives. If greater productivity and greater individual effort are necessary to safeguard the 40-hour week —and they undoubtedly are—then the people must be encouraged to respond. The first and obvious step should be substantial . relief from taxation. Overtime earnings should be tax-free. Effort must be made worthwhile in the material sense, ’fherc lias, too, been much agitation these days for the workers to get a larger share of the “national dividend” —a case which, in present circumstances, has no basis in fact. It should, however, be suggested to the Government that were it to reduce its taxation cut from the “national dividend” there would be a greater share of the cake for the whole community. What is more, it is about time the Government realised that Socialist catch-cries and propaganda that has no basis in truth are no substitutes for hard facts. In a democracy people do not work unless there is something to work for.