PRODUCTION QUESTION

Grey River Argus, 25 November 1920, Page 6

PRODUCTION QUESTION

WELFARE LEAGUE VIEW. (Contributed by the League.) "Wherever we turn to-day the sign faces us of an existent call for more goods, more necessities. The people require more houses, fuel, lighting, clothes, foodstuffs and practically all commodities of necessity. The wants canont be met by mere juggling with wages and prices. You arc given higher wages or salaries to meet your wants only to find that you have to pay more and the quantity of goods you get is not increased. We venture to affirm j that heTe in New Zealand tradesmen got more necessities for their families when their wages averaged £3 per week than they do with them now I averaging £5 or over. Not for a moment do wo suggest that they could do .-with, the lower rate now. Our point, and it is most important, that with the higher rates they do not get the goods. If every man's wage was raised to £10 a day that of itself would not supply another house to live in, or another ton of coal for domestic purposes. The. only way to get more goods is to have more produced. In America, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, France, men of aU classes and, all parties, who think, affirm this proposition, of "the need for more production." Business men, LabouT leaders, Conservatives, Liberals, BoiV.hevikfc a]} together are saying "What is wanted is ' more goods, more service." "KAIL-SITTERS" CITED. Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, said recently in Boston: — "We cannot evade this question of production. The Amalgamated canont accept the ordinary rule of commerce, the principle of the business man, which is to give as little as possible and take as much as possible. We must take a different attiude and accept' responsibiltiy fox production. We canont have sabotago by withholding production; we cannot have loafing; we must have production and we must recognise our responsibility."

Samuel Gompers, president of the American Iledcration, of Labour, recently wrote: — "The trades union movement of America understands fully the necessity for adequate production of the necessities of life. American Labour understands, perhaps more fully' than do. American statesmen, the needs of the world in this hour, and it is exerting every effort to see that those needs are met with intelligence and with promptness. The question of increased productivity is not a question of putting upon the toilers a more severe strain; it is a question of vast fundamental change in the management of industry; a question of the elimination of outworn policies; a question of the introduction of the very best in. machinery and methods and management. In B'cccmbcr of last year the AmGriean Federation of Labour issued the following in an open letter: — "To promote further the production of. an adequate supply of the world's needs for use and higher standards of life wo urge that here be established cooperation between the scientists of industry and the representatives of organised workers." The Hon. R. Clynes, M.P., says: "To say there ought to bj more people engaged in production is sound enough. We need better distribution of commodities, and there ought to be improvements in a score of other directions. But all the evidence in favour of these reforms provides no argument against placing at the disposal of the people in greater quantity the things they want. That greater quantity can come only from increased production, which would benefit employers not near so greatly as it would the workers themselves." Other men such as Messrs Barnes, Thomas, Roberts and others have urged the same need for ''more production."

Our opinion is that the words of Mr Gompers that " the question of increased productivity is a question of vast and fundamental changes in the man-, agement of industry is sound and reasonable. It is a question of "introducing the best ia machinery, methods and management." After all the employers are in charge. Can they produce the goods? That is the, question. We can hear the grumblers amongst the employers (there are such amongst lie employers as' well as amongst the workers) ' ' Oh, well, we can produce, if Labour would only — ." Some of them amy never have heard the phrase "a bad employer makes a bad workman." , The question is not, can you produce the goods when everything is easy? But can you produce the goods now. In our opinion there is altogether too method of a tendency for employers as well as workers <to think that they are excused for their neglect by merely blaming others. Looking at our indus.tries. Take farming. In many directions it is not farming with any brains but mere soil scratching and we Know this to be the opinion of experts. In our secondary industries we find the same habit and the routiuc methods of many years ago is to much in evidence in many parts of the Dominion. What is urgently called for is a linking up more closely of sciences and industry, the utilisation of the most .export knowledge both in> work and management and more commonsense co-opera-tion between the management and operatives to get the best from both jointly. The goods are wanted badly. It is no time to stand upon worn out precedents, the dignity of your status and other shibboleths that men of ac tion despise. The call is for more pro-