HOURS OF WORK

Grey River Argus, 15 May 1935, Page 8

HOURS OF WORK

SHORTENING NEEDED Reasons and Prospects A short time ago the British GorawTft a " nou ’ieed that it would disthe -Jo t cc e ntral organisations of orkers and the employer? the Tht p” v f red uetion of hours of work, rhe Parliamentary Secretary to th = nea’o y o° f t Eab ° Ur Said in ‘Ms eonnection that what we think ought to ? d ° na ‘” s country is to see, in?iWo t / industry, whether it is possible to shorten hours without reducing i 7 whV ?’ 7 is nOt P° ssible ‘o do it without reducing wages, to see what sacrifices the employers or the men lespectively are prepared to make.” the trade unions were not very optimistic about the result. It was' pointH.V’I ' a ef °™ the talks took place that the trade unions had tried to get the forty-hour week without reduction of X; introduced in the engineering and shipbuilding industries, but tha/ther had been met by a flat refusal. Even rt! Fostalas ‘er-General, a member of the MacDonald Government, had turni a s! ' nilar proposal in respect of the Post Office staff. P At the conference with the. trade unions, which has now taken place, the nresent 6 "? ° f th<! Mi " !ster of presented no surprise. Reduction of the number of women in industry was L ? > *l! rp ?- e suggestion in the speech of the Minister of Labour. Speaking on behalf of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, Wahter M. Citrine, the General SeeretPOi"?',l ?- ut tllat - although the Minister had disclaimed anv political motive behind his suggestion,' there was reason for strong suspicion «that the real purpose was to delay action. The National Government had a black record on this matter, both at home and at Geneva. It did not require Government intervention, he continued, to persuade the two sides in industry to discuss such matters as those now raised. The trade unions had, for some time, been pressing on the employers in many industries specific proposals tor coping with unemployment. While any communication from the Govern ment would be considered without delay.

New Zealand was the first country in the world to adopt the universal eight-hour day, and although this law has not been on the Statute Book it has been recognised in this country for the past half-century. When the workers in most European countries were ■working ten or twelve hours a day, the eight-hour day was universally in operation in New Zealand and Australia. During the past twentyfive years, the workers in European countries and also in the United States of America, have succeeded in obtaining the shorter working day, and there are now but few industries where the 48-hour week does not apply. In the United States, the shorter working time has been applied under Ihe provisions of the National Recovery Act, and the average weekly working time for 1934 was 374 hours. Now there is a demand that this be further reduced to 30 hours as this would absorb in employment another .five million workers (says the “Transport Worker”).

What progress have we made in the direction of the shorter working hours in New Zealand? For at least 50 years the eight-hour day has been recognised, and for at least 25 years he 44-hour week has been established in some industries. New Zealand should be amongst the first nations in the world to reduce working time, and particularly so when there is such, a surplus of available labour power which cannot find employment. It has been suggested that if the working time were reduced from 48 or 44 hours to 40, it would create a considerable amount of employment, and no doubt this is perfectly true. We are of the opinion, however, that the cut in working hours must be more drastic. We should insist in New Zealand on a reduction of the hours of work to seven per day and five days per week, and where shifts are in operation to a six-hour shift with four shifts operating the industry, or a 36hour week. This, we believe, would end the unemployment problem in New Zealand at least for a time, but it must be understood that new machines and new processes will be again introduced and it may be necessary in the near future to reduce working time further.

When we have placed this question before the employers, and indeed some of the workers, they do not seem to realise the fact that the nation must keep its surplus workers either by employment or by paying a dole when they la re unemployed. The first thing that must be considered is that of buying power. The great buyers of the world’s commodities are the wage and salaried workers. Tf machines produce goods, no good purpose will he served by their production unless they can find a purchaser, for the great difference between a human being producing goods by hand labour and the machine producing the same goods without human labour is that the machine is not a consumer of goods, while the human being is. If then, the employers desire the goods to be purchased and consumed, they should recognise the fact that it is necessary to do two things—/First, to employ every available worker, and, second, to pay these workers a wage that will enable them to maintain a fair standard of living. Unless the foregoing is recognised and that very speedily,, we must have either a period of in-' dustrial retrogression or one-half of the workers will be in employment and they and the industries which they operate must maintain the other half of the workers who cannot find employment at all. The tragedy of the youth to-day must be apparent to everybody. Thousands of hoys and girls leave school each year. They are entitled to learn the arts, the crafts and the trades, hut what opportunity is being given to them by the Government or by the employers who own the agencies of production and the natural resources? They are cast aside. They are not required. The employers do not want them to learn a trade. They arc not allowed even to operate the machines. They are the unwanteds in modern society. If these young people are not taught the trades and professions, what is to become of them? Where will they drift? The employers’ organisations throughout the world have at least recognised the fact that a change must take place, but what do they propose to do? They suggest now that the school-leaving age should be raised to 16, and the workers’ retiring age should be 55, that the daily or weekly hours of work should remain as they are, and that each worker should pay into a superannua tion fund throughout his whole work-

ing life to obtain a pension at 55. While everyone will agree that national superannuation is essential for the welfare of the people, no one will suggest that the workers’ should not have more leisure from day to day. Apart from everything else, if machine production and new processes continue to he applied at the same rapid rate for the next twenty years as they were during the past twenty years, there will be no necessity whatevr to work 35 hours a week, and there certainly will be no necessity’ for men and women to remain at work in the fields, factories and workshops to the age of 55,